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
  #71  
Old February 19th 07, 09:35 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
JQ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default Can I set my own bindings?


"Walt" wrote in message
...
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


Are you two not saying the same thing? Both of you mentioned that to have
torque something must move am I correct?

I guess the difference in your argument is what must move. The item that is
being torqued or the item doing the torqueing.
As I understand your arguments as long as there is movement in an arc or
rotational direction from an applied force there is torque, correct?
If this is correct then once a force is applied there is movement no matter
how small, no movement no force. Did I understand everything?

JQ
Dancing on the edge











Ads
  #72  
Old February 19th 07, 09:37 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Walt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,188
Default Can I set my own bindings?

VtSkier wrote:

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


Ok. Change the brick out for a ski. Grasp it by the binding and hold it
vertically. Not that hard, is it?

Now grasp it by the tail and (try to) hold it horizontally. Much
harder, right?

Why? What makes one so much harder than the other? The force hasn't
increased, since the ski weighs the same as it did before.

So what makes it so much harder? HINT: torque. I double dog dare you
to hold a ski like that and tell me that you don't feel the difference.


//Walt





  #73  
Old February 19th 07, 09:44 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
VtSkier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,233
Default Can I set my own bindings?

Walt wrote:
(snip)

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


No

Force implies torque, torque implies force.


Force can PRODUCE torque, torque CONTAINS a force component.

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 cannot find a single definition of torque that
doesn't require motion that is either happening
or is about to happen. Including a text book
definition with begins with a discussion of
angular momentum and its relationship to torque.

http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...ch05/ch05.html

One of the problems here seems like an unconventional use
of a common tool, the torque wrench. The way this tool is
commonly used it to determine that a nut is tight enough to
not back itself off but not so tight as there is the danger
of stripping the threads. This is really the intended use
of a torque wrench. The way it's used is that you turn the
nut with the wrench until the indicator says that you have
reached the correct value. When that happens, you stop
turning. While you are turning (moving, angular momentum)
you are applying torque. When you stop, you no longer are.


(snip)
  #74  
Old February 19th 07, 09:46 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Walt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,188
Default Can I set my own bindings?

JQ wrote:

Are you two not saying the same thing? Both of you mentioned that to have
torque something must move am I correct?


No. VtSkier is saying that in order to have torque something must
move. I am saying it is incorrect.

Please, let's not get into an argument over whether we're having an
argument. We are, the point of contention is clear.

I guess the difference in your argument is what must move.


NOTHING has to move for there to be torque.

//Walt
  #75  
Old February 19th 07, 09:50 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
VtSkier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,233
Default Can I set my own bindings?

Walt wrote:
(snip)

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.


No I don't.

http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...ch05/ch05.html

Torque distinguished from force

Of course a force is necessary in order to create a torque --- you can't
twist a screw without pushing on the wrench --- but force and torque are
two different things. One distinction between them is direction. We use
positive and negative signs to represent forces in the two possible
directions along a line. The direction of a torque, however, is
clockwise or counterclockwise, not a linear direction.

And then it goes on to add the leverage component of torque.

And I'm not real happy with this guy's definitions either. It feels
like he is confusing force and work/energy by saying, "We use
positive and negative signs to represent forces in the two
possible directions along a line." Which says to me that "force"
as he is using it, has motion/distance associated with it.
  #76  
Old February 19th 07, 09:51 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
VtSkier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,233
Default Can I set my own bindings?

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?

//Walt


****, if you are as bored as I am, go for the full hour.

Or go skiing.
  #77  
Old February 19th 07, 09:58 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Walt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,188
Default Can I set my own bindings?

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

  #78  
Old February 19th 07, 10:08 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Walt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,188
Default Can I set my own bindings?

VtSkier wrote:
Walt wrote:

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.


No I don't.


You don't what? You don't agree that it's possible to have force
without motion? Or what?


http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...ch05/ch05.html

Torque distinguished from force

Of course a force is necessary in order to create a torque --- you can't
twist a screw without pushing on the wrench --- but force and torque are
two different things. One distinction between them is direction. We use
positive and negative signs to represent forces in the two possible
directions along a line. The direction of a torque, however, is
clockwise or counterclockwise, not a linear direction.

And then it goes on to add the leverage component of torque.

And I'm not real happy with this guy's definitions either. It feels
like he is confusing force and work/energy by saying, "We use
positive and negative signs to represent forces in the two
possible directions along a line." Which says to me that "force"
as he is using it, has motion/distance associated with it.


I can't say I care much for his presentation either. It suffers from a
common problem: trying to explain physics without vector calculus. When
you try this you wind up dancing around things with vague statements
about directions and magnitudes, everything is done with scalars and
with some hand waving argument about what direction grafted on at the
end. Things get muddy. High school physics, which is usually taught
without calculus, is particularly suceptible to this phenomenon.


//Walt
  #79  
Old February 19th 07, 10:24 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Richard Henry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,756
Default Can I set my own bindings?

On Feb 19, 1:05 pm, VtSkier wrote:
Richard Henry wrote:
Is this replacing the annual percent-slope-versus-angle thread?


Do you want to start that one?


Well, there hasn't been enough snow this year to get the avalanche
threads burning.


  #80  
Old February 19th 07, 10:31 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Walt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,188
Default Can I set my own bindings?

Richard Henry wrote:
On Feb 19, 1:05 pm, VtSkier wrote:
Richard Henry wrote:


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

Do you want to start that one?


Well, there hasn't been enough snow this year to get the avalanche
threads burning.


Yeah. Only six avalanche fatalities last weekend. Hardly even worth
mentioning.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070219/NEWS03/70219007

//Walt
 




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 12:07 PM.


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