So its just you then? Do you accept the energy in moving that nut is torque x angle of rotation. Where the angle is in radians. Do you know what a radian is?
This might assist:
I think you're moving backwards here!
Now you've gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Perhaps you'd better keep taking the tablets. If you don't have any to take, best get some.
Elsewhere on this debacle you definitely told me torque makes the crank turn.
You are now approaching parity with Flat Earth trolls.
There will be no work done or power expended on the vehicle that is up against the wall, unless it moves by the body crumpling. Nor on the wall, unless you push it over. There will be a little bit of work done and power burnt in the friction and heat as the wheels spin and the tyres make smoke. Then you stall as you can't run the engine at maximum power on no load before you drop the clutch. The throttle opening to hold the engine at maximum power rpm on no load is very small and supplies enough air to make the power required to cover pumping and ancillary losses at that engine speed. The difference between indicated power and zero net power. All you achieve is a brief transfer of energy stored in the rotating engine parts to the tyres.
I don't assume anything. Including the gearing given and the torque and power outputs at the quoted speeds in the gears. And how the performance was tested to give the acceleration figures. Too many variables. If it comes from a published article, let's have a link to it so I can check such things.
I'm sure a few 'facts' you find online are perfectly good enough for the likes of you.
There you go again. I said nothing about having a degree.
But anyone who knows the slightest thing about engineering checks and double checks measurements before making a definitive calculation. That's the difference between you and me.
Why do you keep on with your red herrings?
Really? Please quote where.
I'm sure that makes sense to you.
Maximum power rpm with no load, eh?
Where do you think that maximum power goes? Heat?
No but the wheels smoke like f....k :)
Plus your going to lose a large chunk of energy through the clutch as it burns up
Do you call energy a red herring?
What did you get your degree in and where from?
You don't come across as being very bright or you lack basic skills of comprehension.
Do you understand "Maximum power rpm"?
Do you believe the engine is providing power if there is no load at any specified rpm?
No wonder you can't answer Peter's very simple question.
You don't need to assume anything. The answer is blindingly obvious to anyone with a meaningful engineering degree.
Newton also came up with a number of laws. Do you think your ideas trump the testament of time since Newton?
Did Newton attribute acceleration do torque or power?
I did wonder, your replies are from someone who didn't have a clue about simple classical mechanics. I presume you studied but failed.
Anyone with engineering experience can look at Peter's question and immediately find the right answer.
The difference between you and any self respecting engineer is they can see it and why, and you can't or even begin to understand the problem.
And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?
michael adams
...
Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?
It's a serious question
It was posted in response to this claim of yours.
Which for some reason you chose to snip.
So I can only ask you again
And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?
michael adams
...
If you have no apples is there any particular problem in increasing the number of apples you have? Compared with already having some apples. I can see that negative apples would create a problem, but not one that a vector quantity would share. For aeroplanes in particular, acceleration in one direction may be necessary despite velocity being in another. The behaviour of kinetic energy in this case is harder to calculate, but follows rules.
Not if the apples can self generate, no.
(Which is equivalent to applying Fred's definition to a stationary vehicle)
It might be the foundation of a very profitable business in fact.
But otherwise it would require an outside agency to provide the apples.
michael adams
...
If you accelerate a moving car in the direction of its motion, its kinetic energy increases. If you accelerate a stationary[1] car, it acquires kinetic energy. I think I am missing the problem.
[1] Stationary only in our local frame of reference, of course, but that has no relevance at the sort of speeds we are talking about.
You might receive a more meaningful answer in uk.rec.gardening
Because you asked a question, presumably posed to DP, to my question. This would have been some time ago.
I find it most disturbing you need to ask twice. Google is your friend.
If you want to make a point then make it, don't ask a stupid question a child would ask, and more likely know the answer.
I don't believe you're missing any problem. Mr Adams is trying to make a point and failing handsomely in the process.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required