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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
Walt wrote:
...And someday I plan to get the other two volumes of Feynman.... There are THREE? I thought there were only two. -- Cheers, Bev ---------------------------------------------- "Tough? We drink our urine and eat our dead!" -- N. Heilweil |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
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. The confusion is in the concept of total torque and component torques. You can apply a component torque which does not cause motion. In the case of the screw, the torque wrench applies a torque (indicated by the reading on the wrench) and the screw applies an equal and opposite torque such that no motion occurs until it breaks free of the friction. The total torque until the screw moves is zero, or there would be motion. However, the wrench is still applying a torque, which is given by the reading. Would anybody get it if I said, "I need a moment".. -klaus |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
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? Well yah. I took physics from Resnick. -klaus |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
Walt wrote:
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. Of course there is a difference. The difference is LEVERAGE and LEVERAGE is a component of TORQUE. See http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...ch05/ch05.html which is quoted in a post a little farther down the list. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
Walt wrote:
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. That's what you are saying. Please, let's not get into an argument over whether we're having an argument. We are, the point of contention is clear. Walt is quite correct with his analysis of the disagreement. I guess the difference in your argument is what must move. NOTHING has to move for there to be torque. Yes it does. //Walt |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
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. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
Walt wrote:
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? I certainly agree that you CAN have force without motion, but it's not called WORK or TORQUE. It's simply called FORCE or weight or the static pull of gravity, but now work or torque is performed without movement. 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 |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
klaus 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. The confusion is in the concept of total torque and component torques. You can apply a component torque which does not cause motion. In the case of the screw, the torque wrench applies a torque (indicated by the reading on the wrench) and the screw applies an equal and opposite torque such that no motion occurs until it breaks free of the friction. The total torque until the screw moves is zero, or there would be motion. However, the wrench is still applying a torque, which is given by the reading. Would anybody get it if I said, "I need a moment".. -klaus 1) Walt? Are you reading this? 2) M(max) = WL/8 is the moment calculation for? 3) Zero Torque = No Motion, So Walt, what you were saying is that Zero Torque does not equal the statement "there is no torque". I think we've just had a word battle. I think we should each declare victory and withdraw. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
VtSkier wrote:
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. This is where you get confused. Torque has nothing to do with work. Torque and work end up with the same units, which can lead to confusion, but which is why work is referred to in pound feet and work in foot pounds. Work is actually the integral of the vector values of force dot distance. So the only work done via a torque is via the force times angle (in radians) over 2*PI*R. So one revolution at constant 1 pound force gives 2*PI*R pound feet of work. This is independent of the applied torque, other than the fact that it is the source of the force. -klaus |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Can I set my own bindings?
VtSkier wrote:
I certainly agree that you CAN have force without motion, but it's not called WORK or TORQUE. It's simply called FORCE or weight or the static pull of gravity, but now work or torque is performed without movement. No. If you are using total torque as a basis for motion, total force is exactly equivalent for motion. You can't have 'em both. You cannot have a total force if there is no motion, and the motion accelerates at F/m where F is the total force. Maybe you are getting confused with non-inertial reference frames and gravity? -klaus |
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 |