Mr.Clutch?

Depends on the frame of reference.,

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

The only way you could do that would be to push start the car, or get a tow.

michael adams

...

You seem to have little grasp on the subject of Newtonian / Classical mechanics.

By getting the engine to increase the speed of the stationary car, stupid.

Stop snorting that dog shit.

I suppose the idea of a self-propelled vehicle must have come as a bit of a surprise with the first traction engines. Indeed, I believe some of the more inflexible sections of the 19th century population did suspect something not quite natural, and a bit magical, about a vehicle moving without being pulled or pushed. I would have thought we would be used to it by now, though.

The speed and the kinetic energy are not different things, neither is prior, they are different descriptions of the same thing.

Careful, he'll implode between the ears if you don?t watch out.

On second thoughts...

I see that a fundamental understanding of science does not exist in what passes for your mind...

...a fairly typical remoaner, it would seem.

None at all, I suspect. Worse, he seems unable to distinguish scientific models from reality,

Probably believes in 'climate change' then...

I think we had horses for a millennia. They are self propelled.

Not Mr Clutch-Bag hello ducky then. Brian

As indeed we are ourselves. But I think primitive ideas of 'naturalness' made sense to people and self-propulsion was probably regarded as an aspect of life rather than mechanics. It is hard to put oneself into the mind of people who really see animals operating on totally different physical laws to vehicles, but this may still be the majority view?

Acceleration/Deceleration results in a change of velocity and hence change of kinetic energy. Even if the change in speed is measured in the frame of the earth's rotation / solar system / galaxy / universe it is still a change in velocity with a resulting change in KE.

To start a car moving KE is transferred from the rotating engine to the wheels. The increased KE required for acceleration comes from the chemical energy of the fuel released by combustion. Modern engines with computer controlled idle can be made to pull off without an initial increase in rpm but as it uses some the engine's KE there will be a reduction in rpm that results in the ECU opening the idle air valve to maintain rpm, which releases more chemical energy required for the change of KE.

Since the 1911 (over 100 years ago) to start the engine moving chemical energy is converted into electrical energy and then to KE by rotating the starter motor. No pushing or towing required unless the chemical energy store is depleted. Before the starter motor was dependable most people used a hand crank which wasn't deleted until the 1950's. While the kick start remained on motorcycles until the late 1980's.

As for torque. A vehicle parked on a slope is held in place by the torque generated in the brakes. No power required or energy expended. Even though they are producing torque the brakes don't get warm. They get warm when they dissipate the cars KE as thermal energy to the air.

What proponents of "torque wins races" can't come to terms with is that if two otherwise identical cars, running at the same road speed are geared correctly, a car with 100Nm at 7000rpm will accelerate at exactly the same rate as one with 200Nm at 3500rpm.

There seems a common theme that Remoaners seem out of touch with the real physical world.

I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but certainly true of the more vocal ones in this and a parallel thread.

Judging by the green movement, that is certainly the case today. I am not sure that it used to be the case though. I dont think they had any concept of 'naturalness' before the devloment of Romanticism....

...

"Romanticism (also the Romantic era or the Romantic period) was an artistic, literary, musical and intellectual movement that originated in Europe toward the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution,[1] the aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature?all components of modernity.[2] It was embodied most strongly in the visual arts, music, and literature, but had a major impact on historiography,[3] education,[4] and the natural sciences.[5] It had a significant and complex effect on politics, with romantic thinkers influencing liberalism, radicalism, conservatism and nationalism.[6]"

(wiki)

Needless to say it was of course Germany that spearheadead the whole nonsense...and it was then as bow an affectation of the slightly educated middle classes.

and self-propulsion was probably

Yep. Totally true. These are the people who go on about inhumane treatment of animals...;-)

I have no knowledge of that. Presumably previously such properties of animals were thought simply to have been imparted by god. Certainly very few people at any time in history have seriouslly thought about the mechanical processes involved. Though clearly some have, for some thousands of years.

I agree with them. But simply because of their empirical ability to suffer discomfort and distress. The animals as well.

Perhaps we had better not do theories of mind here. I prefer to stick to my prejudices.

An odd statement given the vast number of times you have reposted someone else's data about BMWs as a question to me. And point bank refuse to address any points arising from that.

Eh?

To get the car with 100Nm at 7000rom to be at the same road speed as one with 200Nm at 3500 rpm means you have to use a 2:1 reduction gear, which doubles the torque at the driving wheels. Ignoring the usual red herrings most seek to introduce.

Just what point do you think that proves?

Some basic questions can be answer by young schoolchildren. Classical mechanics tends to be on a further education or A-level syllabus.

When stupid questions are asked and it is clear the person asking them has no understanding of the subject there is little point in replying with an answer. In any case the answer has already been given here.