Re: Efficiency against frictional resistance

From: Paul Cardinale (pcardinale_at_volcanomail.com)
Date: 06/30/04 

Date: 30 Jun 2004 06:42:15 -0700

dcshead@charter.net (Donald G. Shead) wrote in message news:<48402bae.0406291746.e274df1@posting.google.com>...
> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message news:<x5hdsu8sjv.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>...
> > dcshead@charter.net (Donald G. Shead) writes:
> >
> > > pcardinale@volcanomail.com (Paul Cardinale) wrote in message news:<64050551.0406280605.79de3a6a@posting.google.com>...
> > > > dcshead@charter.net (Donald G. Shead) wrote in message news:<48402bae.0406271054.5b51efe3@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > pcardinale@volcanomail.com (Paul Cardinale) wrote
> > > > > Cut<
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Idiot. You know nothing of friction. Increasing speed does not
> > > > > > increase efficiency.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paul Cardinale
> > > > >
> > > > > It's the momentum Paul: The product of mass [m], _and_ its speed [v];
> > > > > where [mv = ft] that has to be increased in order to increase
> > > > > efficiency. Quit playing dumb will ya, and think?
> > > >
> > > > Idiot. Increasing momentum does not increase efficiency. You know
> > > > nothing about physics. You are a crap-spewing moron.
> > >
> > > If you can do the job quicker, then you only have to overcome the
> > > friction for a lesser time: Friction and other impediments are what
> > > create heat and waste energy Paul. Even an idiot should be able to
> > > understand this.
> >
> > It is basic first physics class knowledge that dissipated energy is
> > force times distance, not force times time. Cover the same distance
> > faster with the same friction, and you lose the same energy to
> > friction.
> >
> > It is amusing that somebody that does not even have a grasp of the
> > most basic first-month physics concepts tries dissipating his
> > "wisdom" in such a condescending manner.
>
> It is amusing to me that _anyone_ can lack the common sense to think
> that exerting effort for a longer period of time does not use more
> energy; in proportion to the _time_: Regardless of the distance that
> is "moved".
>
> I know that 'in physics' work is defined as force times distance, not
> force times time: But really; holding up a book or some other object
> for twice as long requires twice as much effort and will use twice as
> much fuel enrgy; even though according to "physics" no "work" is done
> in either case.
>
> Does it ever occur to any of you that a book must be constantly
> decelerated in order to hold it at a constant level? In physics the
> only difference between acceleration and deceleration is direction,
> and direction is "relative"; it depends on one's orientation.
>
> Distance is relative, and the fact that the book is not moved any
> distance; is not accelerated upward is relative: The book is
> decelerated from falling, and remains at the same level due to this
> deceleration. The effort and energy consumption of holding, and/or
> moving something is proportional to the _time_ the effort is exerted,
> and has little or no dependence on the relative distance we "see" it
> move.

You're an idiot's idiot. A four-year-old knows more about energy and
efficiency than you. How much power does your boolself consume?

Paul Cardinale

Relevant Pages
Quantcast