OEM Manual Torque Spec Question

[1RB2534]

Need some input here. Was looking in my Kawasaki OEM manual for the FC420V flywheel nut torque specs. Now admittedly I'm just a shade tree mechanic but I have read a few torque specs over the yrs but never recall one written like this.

As shown in attached pic the Flywheel Nut for FC420V is listed as 137 N~m (101 lbf~ft) I've substituted an ~ for the mid height dot shown in pic.
Now I know what NM (newton meter) is and I know what ft lbs (and inch lbs) are. And the NM conversion shows 101 x 1.35582 = very close to 137. So I know it's saying 101 ft lbs.

But what's the technical logic in writing lb ft as lbf~ft. In other words why the extra ~ft? It almost looked to me like they meant ft lbs times ft till I did the conversion.

I'm guessing this logic is tied to the other inch lb specs where in they are written as lbf~in which is even more confusing to me. Anyhow I guess this is how metric folks write their stuff but I don't ever recall seeing this way before. Maybe I'm getting senile at my age.

 

[Boobala]

You can always call a Dealer or Kawasaki Support ( or on-line) ....

 

[Ronno6]

I would have to believe that the "extra" f is intended to mean "force"
lbforce.. but, that is just supposition on my part.
Remember, these manuals are written in Japanese and then translated..........not always a straight forward process.

 

[1RB2534]

I would have to believe that the "extra" f is intended to mean "force"
lbforce.. but, that is just supposition on my part.
Remember, these manuals are written in Japanese and then translated..........not always a straight forward process.

Thanks, that's probably it, the software translation went a bit south. They aren't 100% yet I surmise what with the Ascii ambiguities. Anyhows was just wondering if there was some sort of OEM jargon I had missed in the equation.

 

[Ronno6]

x = [ -b + - √(b^2 - 4ac)] / 2a

 

[cpurvis]

Quadratic equation written another way:

ax^2 +bx +c = 0

 

[bertsmobile1]

Thanks, that's probably it, the software translation went a bit south. They aren't 100% yet I surmise what with the Ascii ambiguities. Anyhows was just wondering if there was some sort of OEM jargon I had missed in the equation.

No
Ronno is quite correct it used to be written as pounds force
Some old text books still have the F in there mostly from Europe.
Because Americans are cheap and can not afford the printing ink, the F got dropped like the U in colour and lots of double F's , N's & P's in proper spelling.
Then because Micro sloth became the dominant PC operating system and they modified Word to reflect American spelling lots of propper English has become lost.

A pound is a measure of weight, not force so a torque if inch pounds or foot pounds is technically incorrect it has to be pounds force

 

[1RB2534]

x = [ -b + - √(b^2 - 4ac)] / 2a

Quadratic equation written another way:
ax^2 +bx +c = 0

Point taken (lol), no matter what the formula or how it's written, if JoJo can get back where he once belonged it's a done deal. Bottom line if ax^2 + bx + c = 0 then whether it's a caret or raised mini 2, I guess it's all academic. But sometimes disconcerting to old farts who left their home in Tucson Arizona for some California grass. Get back JoJo.

No
Ronno is quite correct it used to be written as pounds force
Some old text books still have the F in there mostly from Europe.
Because Americans are cheap and can not afford the printing ink, the F got dropped like the U in colour and lots of double F's , N's & P's in proper spelling.
Then because Micro sloth became the dominant PC operating system and they modified Word to reflect American spelling lots of propper English has become lost.

A pound is a measure of weight, not force so a torque if inch pounds or foot pounds is technically incorrect it has to be pounds force

Well there you go, confirmation that Ronno was in fact trying to enlighten me to some in depth history. I had never seen that nomenclature before in all my days. Who says you can't teach an old man (or dog) new tricks.

So when I put a barbell weight on a digital scale and record it's actual weight. And then set my old Torque wrench to this weight in ft lbs (err I mean ft lbs * Force). And then hang said weight from the end of said Torque wrench handle that's inserted into a welded stationary socket. I can verify if (or if not) my old Torque wrench is still in proper calibration. I thank you guys again for keeping me calibrated. Happy wrench turning.

 

[bertsmobile1]

Point taken (lol), no matter what the formula or how it's written, if JoJo can get back where he once belonged it's a done deal. Bottom line if ax^2 + bx + c = 0 then whether it's a caret or raised mini 2, I guess it's all academic. But sometimes disconcerting to old farts who left their home in Tucson Arizona for some California grass. Get back JoJo.



Well there you go, confirmation that Ronno was in fact trying to enlighten me to some in depth history. I had never seen that nomenclature before in all my days. Who says you can't teach an old man (or dog) new tricks.

So when I put a barbell weight on a digital scale and record it's actual weight. And then set my old Torque wrench to this weight in ft lbs (err I mean ft lbs * Force). And then hang said weight from the end of said Torque wrench handle that's inserted into a welded stationary socket. I can verify if (or if not) my old Torque wrench is still in proper calibration. I thank you guys again for keeping me calibrated. Happy wrench turning.

That is not far off how they are in fact calibrated
Don't forget the "foot" bit, very few torque wrenches are 1' long so your x pounds needs to be hung at 1' from the centre of the square

 

[Ronno6]

Quadratic equation written another way:

ax^2 +bx +c = 0

Yours is the form for the equation.
Mine is the solution.............