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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
On Feb 21, 4:07 pm, (Jeff Davis) wrote:
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." "Elasticity" and "elastic energy" are not the same thing. |
Ads |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
Jeff Davis wrote:
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. Yes. But this has little to do with kinetic energy. Creep is quasi-static. velocities by difinition are negligible. It most certainly has kinetic energy due to your own equation. Nice to have an intelligent conversation relevant to skiing. Only when it begins to move. Not due to it's change of elasticty as you initially asked. Change (increase) of elasticity of a slab does *NOT* change a slab's kinetic energy. Period. You're playing a game. It's like saying, does a change of a spring's spring constant change its kinetic energy, and then when the responder says no.. you say.. "Wrong, the end broke free and it contracted." It's bull**** and nonsensical.. -klaus |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
In article .com,
Richard Henry wrote: On Feb 21, 4:07 pm, (Jeff Davis) wrote: 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. "Elasticity" and "elastic energy" are not the same thing. No **** Sherlock. Where did I type that? Thanks for the hot ****ing tip Dickie. -- According to John Perry Barlow, "Jeff Davis is a truly gifted trouble-maker." |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
In article ,
klaus wrote: Jeff Davis wrote: In article , The slab creeps before it releases and stores elastic energy. Yes. But this has little to do with kinetic energy. Creep is quasi-static. velocities by difinition are negligible. We're measuring that movement. It's observable. We can calculate a value for v and plug it in to your equation and calculate a real value. It most certainly has kinetic energy due to your own equation. Nice to have an intelligent conversation relevant to skiing. Only when it begins to move. Not due to it's change of elasticty as you initially asked. Change (increase) of elasticity of a slab does *NOT* change a slab's kinetic energy. Period. You're playing a game. It's like saying, does a change of a spring's spring constant change its kinetic energy, and then when the responder says no.. you say.. "Wrong, the end broke free and it contracted." It's bull**** and nonsensical.. We're discussion a dynamic, constantly changing snowpack. It seems to me when the slab slides, it has no elasticity. It can't regain its original shape. Nice anallogy on the spring breaking. You picked right up on what I was questioning. -- According to John Perry Barlow, "Jeff Davis is a truly gifted trouble-maker." |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
Jeff Davis wrote:
In article , klaus wrote: Jeff Davis wrote: In article , The slab creeps before it releases and stores elastic energy. Yes. But this has little to do with kinetic energy. Creep is quasi-static. velocities by difinition are negligible. We're measuring that movement. It's observable. We can calculate a value for v and plug it in to your equation and calculate a real value. No you can't. As long as the slab is in place, a change of elasticity does not imply motion. Internal stress may increase, but that doesn't mean it moves. Only when the boundary conditions change does motion occur, and this is independent of elasticity other than reaching thee breaking point of internal stress and the brittle qualities of the slab.. It most certainly has kinetic energy due to your own equation. Nice to have an intelligent conversation relevant to skiing. Only when it begins to move. Not due to it's change of elasticty as you initially asked. Change (increase) of elasticity of a slab does *NOT* change a slab's kinetic energy. Period. You're playing a game. It's like saying, does a change of a spring's spring constant change its kinetic energy, and then when the responder says no.. you say.. "Wrong, the end broke free and it contracted." It's bull**** and nonsensical.. We're discussion a dynamic, constantly changing snowpack. It seems to me when the slab slides, it has no elasticity. Wrong. The interface has infinite elasticty. The slab remains unchanged. It can't regain its original shape. If it is a slab, it never lost it. Much. Only where it breaks does the elasticity change. Elasticity does not change instantaneously. Ask your dad about crystals and if they instantaneously change elasticity without a phase change occuring. Nice anallogy on the spring breaking. You picked right up on what I was questioning. The interface of the spring to the anchor does not effect the spring constant of the spring. -klaus |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
|
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
In article ,
VtSkier wrote: frankenskier wrote: On Feb 19, 4:46 pm, VtSkier wrote: Walt wrote: VtSkier wrote: Walt wrote: I cannot find a single definition of torque that doesn't require motion that is either happening or is about to happen. That's odd, since I've only posted it about 5 times. Here it is again: T = r x F where F is the force and r is the moment arm vector. Now, what, exactly, is in motion here? A force, acting on a moment arm produces torque. We agree that it's possible for a force to exist without motion. The above definition shows that a stationary force will produce torque. I really can't make this any clearer. If I didn't know you better I'd say that you were just trolling. //Walt It goes to the definition of VECTOR. My reading, which I posted, it that a vector has magnitude and direction. Those are the qualities which create a vector, no? Magnitude is usually expressed as a unit of length. Force is expressed as a unit like pounds or newtons. Force, by this definition is static. It takes movement to make force into work. Or torque. If you multiply a unit by another unit, you have created yet a third unit with the first two units as components of the third. If you multiply a force (weight) unit by a length unit you have a third unit that has both weight and length as components. if the first two units were pounds and feet the third unit will be pound-feet. This is a unit that requires that a force be moved a distance. If you specify the direction of the distance and/or add leverage that unit is called TORQUE as opposed to simply WORK. But the force still has to move a distance.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - On this one, sorry but you're just wrong. Consistently wrong. As in, you've been wrong every single time, on every post in this thread. Except for the few instances where you've agreed with Walt. Oh? Well so far nobody has been able to show me where I'm wrong. You included. You've simply said that I'm wrong and I'll discount your statement until you can back it up. Walt at least has been very patient in trying to show me by his words and others (cites) where I'm wrong. And I STILL haven't gotten it yet. Klaus chimed in to try to shed a little light with his explanation of component torque which may well be where I've been trying to go. It's very hard for me to say that the following is a false statement: "Total torque is zero, therefore there is no torque." Component torque, WTF does that mean? A few more words would be helpful here. Does it mean that there is a component OF torque being applied? Since there are only two parts to torque (at least in the case of tightening or loosening a nut), force and vector, does it mean that force only is being applied to the lever arm which creates the vector until the nut moves and the vector exists? Torque is analogous to force in linear motion. Would you say that you are exerting no force on an object if you're pushing against it, but it doesn't move? No. You'd be exerting a force, but something else must be exerting a force in the opposite direction to balance the total force on the object. -- "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
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. 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. We cleaned out a pile of books. We filled a 100-gallon recycling container with stuff like old DOS manuals and other books that nobody will ever want to read or buy or even be given. We gave (while they were closed, of course) an equivalent amount to the library. Books proliferate beyond all possibility of utility. I am intensely grateful for the space. Only about 200x that amount left to go... Allen has Vol 1. Friend has Vol 2. Both are keeping theirs. This has caused a certain amount of friction. A friend told me a Feynman story yesterday. Caltech has Freshman Camp up in the mountains for all new students a week or so before school starts. The friend, just arrived from Shanghai, brought a dufflebag full of his stuff, including his sleeping bag. Unfortunately, he had left the key to the padlock home. Somebody said "Don't worry, Feynman is here." After dinner, Feynman opened the lock with a screwdriver and a paperclip. It took only a few seconds. Too bad he turned his accent on and off depending on the circumstances. -- Cheers, Bev --------------------------------------------------- I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a pancake on his head: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc15.jpg |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
Richard Henry wrote:
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. I've been looking for the books of the MIT Radiation Lab series. So far, I have one. (Maybe I should look on eBay...) How about the Amazon resellers? We just bought an older tech book from a guy in India at a not-unreasonable price. -- Cheers, Bev --------------------------------------------------- I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a pancake on his head: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc15.jpg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Salomon Relay XLT Bindings - perception and sizing | dengel | Snowboarding | 0 | January 19th 07 07:59 PM |
Bindings Advice Sought | Espressopithecus | Alpine Skiing | 10 | January 7th 07 01:22 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 05:51 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 |