Testing at Thunderhill
04-10-2011, 10:07 PM
#152
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
This was what I said ealier as well. engergy changing forms is work. (i.e. potential to kinetic etc)
work does equal energy from a equation perspective.
I dont make up anything, just as Winders doesnt understand that a higher peak torque engine, might not perform better than a lower peak torque engine if they are the same HP. Its not the rule, as I was TALKING about the exception actuallly. Just as VR was talking about shifting below redline by 300 rpm to maximize straightline acceleration (and he has the data to prove it) independant of traction of control requrements, as that situation is the exception as well. (in otherwords, most all engines in our race cars will be needed to shift at max rpm for max acceleration and maximizing HP)
So, you mock the graphs I send out. they are proof of the concepts. they are proof that at any vehicle speed, if you EVER have more HP , you will accelerate faster, period. there is no excption to that because I didnt write the newtonian identities, Im just reporting them back to you!
acceleration =power/(Mass x velocity)
It doesnt mattter if you dont agree with me that the potential engergy is in the fuel. that the fuel is ignited and causes a force, and the rate that that this force can be appied is power (rate of doing work). all things being equal,if I can burn more fuel faster,(converte more poential energy into kinetic energy) I will have better acceleration will create more force at the rear tires. Now, is that HP calculated by using torque ? that is debatable. does it matter if I just take a rate of change of acceleration vs the traditional measure of Fs?? No, because in the end, we end up with the same answer to how fast some mass of a car can accelerate.
Through all of this, you have me made out to someone that is making up this stuff. quite to the contrary, im just repeating basic newtonian principles that can be used to figure stuff out a little easier than by using some of the ore traditional cacluations. The only thing the HP curve represents to me, is that it contails some values that include more informatin than just torque or RPM. wow, both are included in one curve and it savs steps to look at it for shift points, or performance comparisons. nothing more, nothing less. I would never actually use it to determine actual values, becase in most cases, those would be better extracted with tradtioal methods.
Now, if you want to argue this, explain how I am "wrong", in anthing of the above.
(all said in under 500words
)
work does equal energy from a equation perspective.
I dont make up anything, just as Winders doesnt understand that a higher peak torque engine, might not perform better than a lower peak torque engine if they are the same HP. Its not the rule, as I was TALKING about the exception actuallly. Just as VR was talking about shifting below redline by 300 rpm to maximize straightline acceleration (and he has the data to prove it) independant of traction of control requrements, as that situation is the exception as well. (in otherwords, most all engines in our race cars will be needed to shift at max rpm for max acceleration and maximizing HP)
So, you mock the graphs I send out. they are proof of the concepts. they are proof that at any vehicle speed, if you EVER have more HP , you will accelerate faster, period. there is no excption to that because I didnt write the newtonian identities, Im just reporting them back to you!
acceleration =power/(Mass x velocity)
It doesnt mattter if you dont agree with me that the potential engergy is in the fuel. that the fuel is ignited and causes a force, and the rate that that this force can be appied is power (rate of doing work). all things being equal,if I can burn more fuel faster,(converte more poential energy into kinetic energy) I will have better acceleration will create more force at the rear tires. Now, is that HP calculated by using torque ? that is debatable. does it matter if I just take a rate of change of acceleration vs the traditional measure of Fs?? No, because in the end, we end up with the same answer to how fast some mass of a car can accelerate.
Through all of this, you have me made out to someone that is making up this stuff. quite to the contrary, im just repeating basic newtonian principles that can be used to figure stuff out a little easier than by using some of the ore traditional cacluations. The only thing the HP curve represents to me, is that it contails some values that include more informatin than just torque or RPM. wow, both are included in one curve and it savs steps to look at it for shift points, or performance comparisons. nothing more, nothing less. I would never actually use it to determine actual values, becase in most cases, those would be better extracted with tradtioal methods.
Now, if you want to argue this, explain how I am "wrong", in anthing of the above.
(all said in under 500words
)And there he goes again.
Work DOES NOT equal energy. Energy and work use the same units because energy is the POTENTIAL to perform work. Tell me how a 10lb weight sitting 1 foot above the ground is performing WORK?
You just can't get over the need to make up your own world of physics.
Or maybe it confuses you because he didn't include 12 graphs and repost them over and over.
Work DOES NOT equal energy. Energy and work use the same units because energy is the POTENTIAL to perform work. Tell me how a 10lb weight sitting 1 foot above the ground is performing WORK?
You just can't get over the need to make up your own world of physics.
Or maybe it confuses you because he didn't include 12 graphs and repost them over and over.
04-10-2011, 10:20 PM
#153
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
04-10-2011, 10:29 PM
#154
Lifetime Rennlist Member
In my world, brevity and clear communications show understanding.
I found Prozac online for $166.00
I have $166.00
But $166.00 does not equal Prozac
Energy is the currency of work.
Energy does not equal work.
Oh, and PV=NRT has nothing to do with fluid dynamics. But that is just one of many things you make up.
I found Prozac online for $166.00
I have $166.00
But $166.00 does not equal Prozac
Energy is the currency of work.
Energy does not equal work.
Oh, and PV=NRT has nothing to do with fluid dynamics. But that is just one of many things you make up.
04-10-2011, 10:48 PM
#155
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I guess its all perspective.
if i have $166 in my hand or prozac, i have something worth $166, if we are talking from a perspectve of worth.
you are absolutely right. They are different, but worth the same. If I have a million dollars or a house worth a million dollars, arent they equal? Is my net worth a million dollars eitherway?
again, i said work equals energy, not that they were the same. Ive talked about this plenty times before.
let me summarize all of this talk about power and acceleration in. LESS than one sentence, if you like brievity.
acceleration = power/(mass x velocity). If you dont have any argument there, my point is made . nothing more.
by the way, i never said (or meant) that energy was the same as work, i said it was equal to it.
and yes, I should have been using:
P + rgh + ½rv2 = constant, instead of gas law.
if i have $166 in my hand or prozac, i have something worth $166, if we are talking from a perspectve of worth.
you are absolutely right. They are different, but worth the same. If I have a million dollars or a house worth a million dollars, arent they equal? Is my net worth a million dollars eitherway?
again, i said work equals energy, not that they were the same. Ive talked about this plenty times before.
let me summarize all of this talk about power and acceleration in. LESS than one sentence, if you like brievity.
acceleration = power/(mass x velocity). If you dont have any argument there, my point is made . nothing more.
by the way, i never said (or meant) that energy was the same as work, i said it was equal to it.
and yes, I should have been using:
P + rgh + ½rv2 = constant, instead of gas law.
In my world, brevity and clear communications show understanding.
I found Prozac online for $166.00
I have $166.00
But $166.00 does not equal Prozac
Energy is the currency of work.
Energy does not equal work.
Oh, and PV=NRT has nothing to do with fluid dynamics. But that is just one of many things you make up.
I found Prozac online for $166.00
I have $166.00
But $166.00 does not equal Prozac
Energy is the currency of work.
Energy does not equal work.
Oh, and PV=NRT has nothing to do with fluid dynamics. But that is just one of many things you make up.
Last edited by mark kibort; 04-11-2011 at 01:00 AM.
04-10-2011, 11:09 PM
#156
That would be "2".
The brackets tell us to do the addition first. That give us:
48/2(12)=?
Multiplication and division have equal precedence. Though it is not an actual rule, generally the lack of the multiplication symbol between the "2" and the "(", called "multiplication by juxtaposition", indicates you should multiple those two elements before any others. So:
48/24=2
If you would have given us:
48 / 2 x (9+3) = ?
It would be 288.
Scott
The brackets tell us to do the addition first. That give us:
48/2(12)=?
Multiplication and division have equal precedence. Though it is not an actual rule, generally the lack of the multiplication symbol between the "2" and the "(", called "multiplication by juxtaposition", indicates you should multiple those two elements before any others. So:
48/24=2
If you would have given us:
48 / 2 x (9+3) = ?
It would be 288.
Scott
04-10-2011, 11:14 PM
#157
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I guess i got that one wrong!
the old, " juxtaposition" rule! gets me everytime!
the old, " juxtaposition" rule! gets me everytime!
That would be "2".
The brackets tell us to do the addition first. That give us:
48/2(12)=?
Multiplication and division have equal precedence. Though it is not an actual rule, generally the lack of the multiplication symbol between the "2" and the "(", called "multiplication by juxtaposition", indicates you should multiple those two elements before any others. So:
48/24=2
If you would have given us:
48 / 2 x (9+3) = ?
It would be 288.
Scott
The brackets tell us to do the addition first. That give us:
48/2(12)=?
Multiplication and division have equal precedence. Though it is not an actual rule, generally the lack of the multiplication symbol between the "2" and the "(", called "multiplication by juxtaposition", indicates you should multiple those two elements before any others. So:
48/24=2
If you would have given us:
48 / 2 x (9+3) = ?
It would be 288.
Scott
04-11-2011, 02:50 PM
#159
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I make up things? like HP-seconds?
I said work equals energy , because they both use the same units, but they are not the same. mathematically they are equal.
Hp-seconds are units of work. yes, you can mathematically distill it down to a hp-second=550ft-lbs, and this is true and correct, if you understand that the units are that of work, NOT force a ft-lbs of torque is not the same as a ft-lb of work.
same kind of relationship. this is the problem with the english system.
your 550lbs sitting above the ground has potential energy. as it falls, that potential is converted to kinetic energy.
both can be measured in the same units.
I said work equals energy , because they both use the same units, but they are not the same. mathematically they are equal.
Hp-seconds are units of work. yes, you can mathematically distill it down to a hp-second=550ft-lbs, and this is true and correct, if you understand that the units are that of work, NOT force a ft-lbs of torque is not the same as a ft-lb of work.
same kind of relationship. this is the problem with the english system.
your 550lbs sitting above the ground has potential energy. as it falls, that potential is converted to kinetic energy.
both can be measured in the same units.
And there he goes again.
Work DOES NOT equal energy. Energy and work use the same units because energy is the POTENTIAL to perform work. Tell me how a 10lb weight sitting 1 foot above the ground is performing WORK?
You just can't get over the need to make up your own world of physics.
Or maybe it confuses you because he didn't include 12 graphs and repost them over and over.
Work DOES NOT equal energy. Energy and work use the same units because energy is the POTENTIAL to perform work. Tell me how a 10lb weight sitting 1 foot above the ground is performing WORK?
You just can't get over the need to make up your own world of physics.
Or maybe it confuses you because he didn't include 12 graphs and repost them over and over.
Last edited by mark kibort; 04-11-2011 at 07:47 PM.
