Discussion in 'The Break Room' started by SmithDoor, Nov 2, 2018.
This what 1 horsepower=1.5 ponypower.
Never found clydesdale horsepower
A horsepower is based of the amount of work an average horse could do in 10 hours. This by the horse walking along a capstan bar.
So the result was a horse could raise a 33000 lbs load one foot in one minute. Of course not every horse can do that but thats the number to hit.
Therefore 1 Small horse on a long capstan bar and running very fast = 1 Large Horse on a short capstan bar plodding slowly.
Then 1 Small Horse = Eastern Treadmill Motor @ high RPM and then Large Horse = 6 pole low RPM motor European.
"Never found clydesdale horsepower" Pound for pound Weight probably the most powerful breed ever.
Actually, I live in what was known as a 'Gin Gan or Gin Gang' which was was a roundhouse actually attached to a farm and where a horse would slowly plod around a central point pole and winnow the seeds from the corn
I'd have guessed exactly the opposite myself. Law of inverse squares, etc. with the extra size and mass relative power is diminished. Like how if you enlarged a human to 50 feet tall they wouldn't have the muscle mass to support themselves. This is why fleas have the power to jump 100X their own height and ants can carry 10X their body weight in their mouth. So I would expect the short, stocky little pony breeds to be more powerful, pound for pound (but not total of course).
Of course, this Clydesdale horse thing stems from being 'brainwashed' by recent advertising and that comes from the book and play called 'Warhorse' which stems from the Centenary of the 1914-18 War.
Having seen a horse with fleas on his back but never a flea with horses on his back then best we compare apples with apples
You would not get much land ploughed in a day if you had to harness fleas or ants as it would take all day to get them harnessed up.
Two clydesdales will plough 1 acre a day
You have been talking about the old standard for a horse power.
As a kid my Dad tried to explain the differences. he talked a bit about SAE hp. So long ago I don't remember much of the conversation.
I have long been aggravated by the term, Brake Horsepower, which is what the SAE guys (Standard Automotive Engineers) cam up with to describe the power output of gasoline automobile engines. The old National Standard horsepower goes all the way back into steam days. Difference is that "Brake Horsepower" it the load that is put on an engine running at a given speed that causes it to slow down where "National Horsepower" is much more conservative, it is the load that can be sustained without slowing or causing the engine or components to be overloaded or overheat. This country's SAE gang came up with "Brake Horsepower" at or around the end of WWII in an effort to outdo each other to sell shiny new cars to the soldiers returning from the war, everyone got on the bandwagon and this was the end of truthful HP ratings on automobile engines. Before WWII Ford flathead V-8 engines were honestly rated at say 45 HP but just after the war the BHP on the same engines became numbers like 80 to 95 HP (they quietly omitted the "B") so as to make everyone think they were getting something bigger and better. In todays world, a 360 V8 gasoline engine typically is rated at over 300 HP while a 360 Diesel inline 6 engine is rated at 205 HP. The gas engine bogs down on hills when pulling heavy loaded trailer but a similar vehicle, pulling same trailer with the Diesel just rolls right over the hill. Generally speaking, engines that are rated at high speeds do not really make oodles and gobs of power while engines that have a lower speed at peak horsepower do. Back in the steam engine days, National Horsepower was rated by actual load on an engine, usually a fluid pump or large fan to determine just how much power the engine could deliver continuously without overloading. When Chrysler introduced the Diesel powered Jeep Liberty I got all excited until I went to the dealership to look at one, it was less than 150 CU IN displacement and they claimed 175 HP output. Liars! The Ram diesel truck I bought at the same dealership 5 years before was 360 CU IN and honestly rated at 205 HP. I used to own a truck that weighed over 33 tons loaded and it had a 165 HP Cummins Diesel (without a Turbo) in it and it did quite well with loads on hills.
Just my 2 cents worth and end of my rant!
Clydesdale was KW truck of day
Poney worked in coal mines.
The weight of clydesdale is 1,700 to 2,200 pounds
The weight of Pony is 500 to 900 pounds
The difference between a horse and a pony is determined by the height at the withers. Ponies must be less than 14 hands. A hand equals 4 inches. I have seen two horse hitches that could routinely out-pull a modern tractor. That is 2 horse power versus 40 or 50!
Do you information on draw bar pull of horses
Of course I have to agree the horses are a bit more powerful than the fleas, but you used the term "pound for pound". This allows the comparison of apples with oranges and is what the phrase was intended for (and the reason I assumed you used it).
What it means is that if we have, say a 500 pound horse that can pull 500 pounds (I like easy math) we get 500/500 = 1 pound of force per pound of horse. Now we can compare it to another horse that weighs 1000 pounds. If the second horse can pull 1200 pounds, then for each pound of horse you get 1200/1000 = 1.2 pounds per pound of horse, so pound-for-pound it is more powerful. However, if the second horse can only pull 900 pounds, we get 900/1000 = 0.9 pounds of force per pound of horse. The second horse is more powerful and can do more work, but pound-for-pound it's not as powerful as the 500 pound horse.
The reality is, because of the extra bone mass and larger musculature of larger animals which is required just to support and move the larger animal, pound-for-pound they are generally less powerful than small ones. I used the ant/fleas just to illustrate the principal. We use similar comparisons in engines, cars, motorbikes, etc. and just call it power to weight ratio.
Now if you used the pound-for-pound term in error and just mean the Clydesdale is the most powerful horse overall, then I have no idea - horses just aren't my thing!
No facts claimed just a little word (((probably))) in the first posting and an added aside "Having seen a horse with fleas on his back but never a flea with horses on his back then best we compare apples with apples
Assumption is the mother of all misunderstanding
That translates to lifting 76.09 Kg X 1 meter in 1 second.
In Europe High School 60 years ago 1HP was equivalent to 75 Kg x m /sec
Where are we going? Perhaps this thread belongs in the "Break Room?"
My Two Cents:
I have "heard," "read," or whatever that this kind of discussion about HP, at least in the USA, has lead small engines (lawnmowers and the like) to now be sold with displacement as the main "power" rating rather than the old "2.5 HP @3600 RPM" type description. So, now the unscientific can argue about whether a rating in cc is better than the same displacement described as Cu. In. As well, the marketing crowd likes to say "3.500" rather than "3.5" because there's more numbers in the first statement.
It's been too long since I was in school, but I'm sure someone here can chime in: Is the description of power as stated in other measurement systems or in other parts of the world moving to watts or some other mathmatically-derived or carefully-defined units?
I agree, a horsepower is a formula to be able to know what amount of power you need for your purpose. It really has nothing to do with breeds of horses.
The formula came from horses
Perhaps a little reading about James Watt might not come amiss.
Of course, he was friends with Adam Smith who wrote the Classic 'Wealth of Nations' and both were at the time of what probably was the end of the 7th Agrarian Revolution(?) and the birth of the Industrial Revolution when steam became master. Watt certainly did the calculations of 'horsepower' as a measured force.
Of course he and the Clydesdale Horse came what was then Clydesdale and not 'Glasgow' but as a Sassenach and not a Gael, I'll leave the further research to enjoy.
Wow, this is a subject I had not thought to see on this forum, one that brings back fond memories.
As a child in London, my first paid job in life was to brush down my Uncles two Shire horses on the way to school. Shires are the British heavy horse [& most 'old 'countries have their own breed.] My next paid job was to lead barge horses over a humpback bridge, then harness the horse to an endless rope to haul the barge under the bridge. These were mainly Clydesdale horses [the Scots heavy horse] I was about 8yo then. Then came a long break from horses till my final business before retirement which was conducting horse drawn carriage tours around Raymond Island. An island in the Gippsland Lakes area of Victoria Au. which was inhabited by a large colony of Koalas, which attracted a lot of overseas tourists. A great occupation & one I would hardly call work.
So, to correct a few misconceptions.....
Warhorse . The horse featured in the film was, I think, a Waler [or similar]. Not a heavy [ or drought] horse at all; but quite stocky.
The term HP was derived from a CLYDESDALE horse raising a given weight vertically over a given distance & time.These figures have been mentioned elsewhere.
My interest in horses these days is minimal - I have an interest in a stud breeding Percherons, a French breed of heavy horse, but only as a part owner. Carriage building & repairs, farrier work & forging were all part of the occupation & added to my knowledge base. A great time in my life.
Separate names with a comma.