Can I set my own bindings?
 

VtSkier wrote:
Walt wrote:
VtSkier wrote:

From wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_(spatial)
"In physics and in vector calculus, a spatial vector,
or simply vector, is a concept characterized by a
magnitude and a direction."

Yeah. Ok.


Further down the page, magnitude is intentionally
used interchangeably with "length" in effect saying
it's the same thing.

Yes, the magnitude of a position vector is the same thing it's length.

Then "magnitude" = "distance", to which you add
"direction" to define "torque" as opposed to "work".
The only difference.

Um, you lost me around that last curve. WTF?


Think of it this way: I'm testing a binding. I place a boot in the
binding and apply a torque of, say, 50 Newton Meters. The binding
doesn't release. I've just described a situation where there is
torque but no motion. Do you say there is no torque here? If so, how
does one ever test a binding?

You are NOT applying TORQUE to the torque wrench, you are only
applying FORCE of 50 Newtons. There is no TORQUE until there
is movement (of the binding releasing).

As soon as you apply force you are applying torque. The two go hand in
hand, you can't have one without the other. See the definition of
torque: T = F X r . All you need is force and a moment arm, you do not
need motion. I can't make it any clearer.

I don't know where you got the erroneous idea that torque requires
motion, but it's wrong. Trust me. It's wrong. It's not in the
definition of torque.

You are measuring
POTENTIAL TORQUE, which the wrench reads in Newton-Meters
because when the TORQUE happens (by movement) that's what
it will be.

There is no such thing as POTENTIAL TORQUE, at least not in physics.
You are insistent that the torque doesn't exist until something moves,
so you've invented a red herring concept to explain the existence of
something that's obviously there but theoretically impossible in your
belief system. Get out Dr Occam's razor and excise this unnecessary
complication.

When you apply the force, there is also an applied torque. Regardless
of whether anything moves. Get it?

Force implies torque, torque implies force. Where there is one there is
the other *by definition*. And since we agree that it's possible to
have force without motion it is also possible to have torque without motion.


I've been saying this all along except that TORQUE cannot
exist without motion.

Yes, I know that that's what you've been saying.

And I've been saying that every physics text written in the last 300
years disagrees with you.

//Walt
//
//this is why I usually don't argue physics on usenet

Can I set my own bindings?
 

Richard Henry wrote:

Is this replacing the annual percent-slope-versus-angle thread?

Ya know, I don't recall having this particular argument on RSA before.
And it's been years since we've had a good percent-slope-versus-angle
dust up.

Anyway, if you want to have an argument with me you'll have to pay up
like the other Richard. Would you like the 5 minute version, or do you
want to go for the full hour?

//Walt

Can I set my own bindings?
 

On Feb 19, 2:10 pm, Walt wrote:
Richard Henry wrote:
Is this replacing the annual percent-slope-versus-angle thread?

Ya know, I don't recall having this particular argument on RSA before.
And it's been years since we've had a good percent-slope-versus-angle
dust up.

Anyway, if you want to have an argument with me you'll have to pay up
like the other Richard. Would you like the 5 minute version, or do you
want to go for the full hour?
Did Eugene ever have a winner of his "Physics of Skiing Essay Prize"
contest?

Can I set my own bindings?
 

Walt wrote:

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque , or if you're a stickler
for reliable sources, any elementary physics text like Hailliday and
Resnick, or Sears and Zemansky.

Ah, but do you have your copy of Halliday and Resnick at hand? I do.
Well, not while I'm actually skiing, but nearby. Next to the Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics.

Can I set my own bindings?
 

lal_truckee wrote:
Walt wrote:

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque , or if you're a
stickler for reliable sources, any elementary physics text like
Hailliday and Resnick, or Sears and Zemansky.

Ah, but do you have your copy of Halliday and Resnick at hand? I do.
Well, not while I'm actually skiing, but nearby. Next to the Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics.

But of course, right between Thomas/Finney and Lorrain/Corson. My copy
of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics got stolen many years ago and
I've never replaced it. And someday I plan to get the other two volumes
of Feynman....

//Walt

Can I set my own bindings?
 

Walt wrote:
lal_truckee wrote:
Walt wrote:

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque , or if you're a
stickler for reliable sources, any elementary physics text like
Hailliday and Resnick, or Sears and Zemansky.

Ah, but do you have your copy of Halliday and Resnick at hand? I do.
Well, not while I'm actually skiing, but nearby. Next to the Handbook
of Chemistry and Physics.

But of course, right between Thomas/Finney and Lorrain/Corson. My copy
of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics got stolen many years ago and
I've never replaced it. And someday I plan to get the other two volumes
of Feynman....

You jest!

Can I set my own bindings?
 

Walt wrote:
down_hill wrote:
Walt wrote:

Think of it this way: I'm testing a binding. I place a boot in the
binding and apply a torque of, say, 50 Newton Meters. The binding
doesn't release. I've just described a situation where there is
torque but no motion. Do you say there is no torque here? If so,
how does one ever test a binding?

What are the springs doing? Are they not being compressed motion?

As you increase the torque from zero to 50 the springs compress, and
there is a small amount of motion. Once you reach 50 and stop
increasing the torque the system reaches a steady state where there is
no motion. At that point there is torque but no motion.

I was trying to think of a torque but no motion example...

Here's a more visceral example: pick up a brick and hold it straight
out in front of you with your arm horizontal. Hold it still. Then
please try to explain, without allowing the brick to move, how there is
no torque since there is no motion.

There is FORCE but no TORQUE

//Walt

Can I set my own bindings?
 

Richard Henry wrote:
Is this replacing the annual percent-slope-versus-angle thread?


No, but close.

Can I set my own bindings?
 

Richard Henry wrote:
Is this replacing the annual percent-slope-versus-angle thread?


Do you want to start that one?

Can I set my own bindings?
 

lal_truckee wrote:
Walt wrote:
lal_truckee wrote:
Walt wrote:

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque , or if you're a
stickler for reliable sources, any elementary physics text like
Hailliday and Resnick, or Sears and Zemansky.

Ah, but do you have your copy of Halliday and Resnick at hand? I do.
Well, not while I'm actually skiing, but nearby. Next to the Handbook
of Chemistry and Physics.

But of course, right between Thomas/Finney and Lorrain/Corson. My
copy of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics got stolen many years
ago and I've never replaced it. And someday I plan to get the other
two volumes of Feynman....

You jest!

Nah. If I was jesting I'd say that I keep it in the ski locker next to
the Urquell.

//Walt
//
//