A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » Alpine Skiing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Can I set my own bindings?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old February 21st 07, 02:48 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Walt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,188
Default Can I set my own bindings?

VtSkier wrote:

Actually I'm trying to understand the physics/mechanics meanings of
the words. I'd like to call your attention again to the last URL I
posted with its explanations of WORK and ENERGY. You keep erasing
the URL without commenting on it. It would be helpful to me if
you did comment on it. It will also clarify what I was getting at
in the part of the post you did leave.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html



I've looked at it, and while I can't say that it's wrong, it's not the
way I would organize the information. For instance, presenting WORK
ENERGY and POWER as three distinct categories is somewhat artificial.

Sort of like going to a store's website and seeing three categories:
GEAR EQUIPMENT and PRICING. What's the difference between gear and
equipment?

So, what's the difference between ENERGY and WORK? From a formalist
approach, energy and work are defined separately, then one uses Newton's
laws to prove the work energy theorem which shows that they are
equivalent. So I don't think there's a lot to be gained by
distinguishing the two concepts. Others may differ, but this is a
dispute over pedagogy not physics.


Other than that, I don't see any errors, other than the usual
obfuscation that inevitably occurs when one tries to present physics
without using calculus.

You might want to read through the subject of vectors since you asked me
about it.

I assume you've looked at the page on torque?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...torq.html#torq

//Walt








It's like trying to parse something like "I had my bindings waxed and
now the moguls don't hurt my feet when I schuss across the hill in a
parallel stem-christie wedge turn."

It's hard to follow what the heck the person is on about.

//walt

Ads
  #132  
Old February 21st 07, 02:51 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Walt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,188
Default Can I set my own bindings?

Jeff Davis wrote:

Maybe Walt wants to come out and play on the subject of Elastic Energy
Storage in snowpacks inclined from 30 to 45 degrees.


No, I don't want to come out and play on the subject, I want to come out
and play on actual snowpacks.


//Walt

  #133  
Old February 21st 07, 03:38 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Richard Henry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,756
Default Can I set my own bindings?

On Feb 21, 6:48 am, Walt wrote:

I've looked at it, and while I can't say that it's wrong, it's not the
way I would organize the information. For instance, presenting WORK
ENERGY and POWER as three distinct categories is somewhat artificial.

Sort of like going to a store's website and seeing three categories:
GEAR EQUIPMENT and PRICING. What's the difference between gear and
equipment?

So, what's the difference between ENERGY and WORK? From a formalist
approach, energy and work are defined separately, then one uses Newton's
laws to prove the work energy theorem which shows that they are
equivalent. So I don't think there's a lot to be gained by
distinguishing the two concepts. Others may differ, but this is a
dispute over pedagogy not physics.

Other than that, I don't see any errors, other than the usual
obfuscation that inevitably occurs when one tries to present physics
without using calculus.

You might want to read through the subject of vectors since you asked me
about it.

I assume you've looked at the page on torque?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...torq.html#torq


Even without calculus, you can do dimensional analysis, reducing to
elementary concepts such as mass, distance, and time.

In that view, work and energy are equivalent. One exends energy to do
work in direct proportion. When you work against gravity to raise an
object, or work against spring compression to wind a clock, you
increase the object's potential energy. Power, however, is energy
divided by time.


  #134  
Old February 21st 07, 03:54 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
VtSkier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,233
Default Can I set my own bindings?

Richard Henry wrote:
On Feb 21, 6:48 am, Walt wrote:
I've looked at it, and while I can't say that it's wrong, it's not the
way I would organize the information. For instance, presenting WORK
ENERGY and POWER as three distinct categories is somewhat artificial.

Sort of like going to a store's website and seeing three categories:
GEAR EQUIPMENT and PRICING. What's the difference between gear and
equipment?

So, what's the difference between ENERGY and WORK? From a formalist
approach, energy and work are defined separately, then one uses Newton's
laws to prove the work energy theorem which shows that they are
equivalent. So I don't think there's a lot to be gained by
distinguishing the two concepts. Others may differ, but this is a
dispute over pedagogy not physics.

Other than that, I don't see any errors, other than the usual
obfuscation that inevitably occurs when one tries to present physics
without using calculus.

You might want to read through the subject of vectors since you asked me
about it.

I assume you've looked at the page on torque?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...torq.html#torq


Even without calculus, you can do dimensional analysis, reducing to
elementary concepts such as mass, distance, and time.

In that view, work and energy are equivalent. One exends energy to do
work in direct proportion. When you work against gravity to raise an
object, or work against spring compression to wind a clock, you
increase the object's potential energy. Power, however, is energy
divided by time.


There's that word "potential" that Walt told me didn't exist
in the present discussion of mechanics.
  #135  
Old February 21st 07, 04:48 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Walt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,188
Default Can I set my own bindings?

VtSkier wrote:
Richard Henry wrote:
On Feb 21, 6:48 am, Walt wrote:
I've looked at it, and while I can't say that it's wrong, it's not the
way I would organize the information. For instance, presenting WORK
ENERGY and POWER as three distinct categories is somewhat artificial.

Sort of like going to a store's website and seeing three categories:
GEAR EQUIPMENT and PRICING. What's the difference between gear and
equipment?

So, what's the difference between ENERGY and WORK? From a formalist
approach, energy and work are defined separately, then one uses Newton's
laws to prove the work energy theorem which shows that they are
equivalent. So I don't think there's a lot to be gained by
distinguishing the two concepts. Others may differ, but this is a
dispute over pedagogy not physics.

Other than that, I don't see any errors, other than the usual
obfuscation that inevitably occurs when one tries to present physics
without using calculus.

You might want to read through the subject of vectors since you asked me
about it.

I assume you've looked at the page on torque?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...torq.html#torq


Even without calculus, you can do dimensional analysis, reducing to
elementary concepts such as mass, distance, and time.

In that view, work and energy are equivalent. One exends energy to do
work in direct proportion. When you work against gravity to raise an
object, or work against spring compression to wind a clock, you
increase the object's potential energy. Power, however, is energy
divided by time.


There's that word "potential" that Walt told me didn't exist
in the present discussion of mechanics.


I said that there's no such thing as "potential torque".

There is most certainly such a thing as "potential energy".

//Walt
  #136  
Old February 21st 07, 06:18 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Walt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,188
Default Can I set my own bindings?

The Real Bev wrote:
Walt wrote:

...And someday I plan to get the other two volumes
of Feynman....


There are THREE? I thought there were only two.


Yup. Three. The first volume is on mechanics & thermo , the second on
E&M and the third on quantum.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fey...res_on_Physics

I've got volume 2, which I picked up at a garage sale for a buck a
decade or two ago. I've been looking for other underpriced stray
volumes ever since. I call this the Bev method of library acquisition.

//Walt


  #137  
Old February 21st 07, 10:01 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Richard Henry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,756
Default Can I set my own bindings?

On Feb 21, 10:18 am, Walt wrote:
The Real Bev wrote:
Walt wrote:


...And someday I plan to get the other two volumes
of Feynman....


There are THREE? I thought there were only two.


Yup. Three. The first volume is on mechanics & thermo , the second on
E&M and the third on quantum.

Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics

I've got volume 2, which I picked up at a garage sale for a buck a
decade or two ago. I've been looking for other underpriced stray
volumes ever since. I call this the Bev method of library acquisition.

//Walt


I've been looking for the books of the MIT Radiation Lab series. So
far, I have one.

(Maybe I should look on eBay...)

  #139  
Old February 22nd 07, 12:04 AM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Jeff Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 830
Default Can I set my own bindings?

In article ,
Alan Baker wrote:

Nope. You've yet to provide a cogent explanation of your statement.


What the **** is this **** dumbass? I asked klaus a question. We have
delusion, do you want to ad narcissism as well to your list of defects?
--
According to John Perry Barlow, "Jeff Davis is a truly gifted trouble-maker."

  #140  
Old February 22nd 07, 12:07 AM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Jeff Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 830
Default Can I set my own bindings?

In article ,
klaus wrote:

No. Kinetic energy is defined as 1/2 mv^2. The slab can lose
elasticity (stiffen) without moving. A moving slab does not have zero
elasticy except at the interface, which is no longer a slab. Therefore
kinetic energy is zero in both cases. Quoting from a dictionary does
not prove your point. It just makes you look like you don't lnow what
you are talking about.


The slab creeps before it releases and stores elastic energy. It most
certainly has kinetic energy due to your own equation. Nice to have an
intelligent conversation relevant to skiing.
--
According to John Perry Barlow, "Jeff Davis is a truly gifted trouble-maker."

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Salomon Relay XLT Bindings - perception and sizing dengel Snowboarding 0 January 19th 07 08:59 PM
Bindings Advice Sought Espressopithecus Alpine Skiing 10 January 7th 07 02:22 AM
Bindings from straight skiis suitable for for shaped? [email protected] Alpine Skiing 7 October 14th 05 05:48 PM
Mounting alpine bindings Terry Hill Alpine Skiing 26 December 6th 03 06:51 AM
Atomic Ski Bindings - 4.12 or 6.14 which is better for me? Christopher Luke Alpine Skiing 7 August 10th 03 03:40 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.