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 |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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...) |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
In article ,
Alan Baker wrote: In article , (Jeff Davis) wrote: Oh. How does an airplane wing change mass? It doesn't. A wing encounters m mass of air each t unit of time. To that air it imparts downward velocity. F = dm/dt * v I still don't see where the mass changes. Lift is a function of the ideal gas law in respect to pressure. -- According to John Perry Barlow, "Jeff Davis is a truly gifted trouble-maker." |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |