traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 what has this got to do with containing the sun in a giant sphere. obviously not if i can only just lift 10lbs 10ft in one second. i fail to see what this has to do with anything, gasses do not behave like weightlifting. Everything behaves like weightlifting. Power=work/time
mooeypoo Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 This is a bad analogy, since the human body gets tired (unlike a force.. or an atom...); the answer is non indicative, then. The mere proposition that "you give it everything you have" is showing you that it is a wrong analogy. I still don't see what you're trying to say and how this has anything to do with relative anything, or with pressure... the proper way to make a comparison or to understand the process that goes on under pressures is to represent it mathematically. That would be much better than trying to use non-equivalent systems like the human body and atoms. Everything behaves like weightlifting. Power=work/time Maybe so (again, read what I wrote about the human body -- you have more consideration there, therefore it's NOT a good analogy) but even so, the term "work" is MUCH different in everyday life and in physics. For that matter, if I am preventing a -q charge - as strong as it may be - from getting closer to a +q charge, I can be almost-dying from stress, and using the help of a truck to prevent the charge from moving, and yet my BODY might be "working" but in physical term the system has no work. Because the -q charge is NOT moving.
insane_alien Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 Everything behaves like weightlifting. Power=work/time no, no it doesn't. that formula relates power to energy usage but so what. that is definitely not the governing equation of weight lifting for one. the fact that you said that shows your level of physics knowledge is at most that of a 13 year old. and hence very very simplistic and generally wrong.
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 no, no it doesn't. that formula relates power to energy usage but so what. that is definitely not the governing equation of weight lifting for one. the fact that you said that shows your level of physics knowledge is at most that of a 13 year old. and hence very very simplistic and generally wrong. I'm wrong? Please explain power to me, and how it isn't power=work/time.
insane_alien Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 well for one, no work is being done in containing a pressurized gas. and i wasn't talking about the equation. although, you can use power without any work being done as work is only one specific type of energy(mechanical).
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 Mooeypoo, it has nothing to do with getting tired, power=work/time. The greater the weight on the bar the slower you will raise it, because the net force is lower. The power remains the same, the force and acceleration changes.
mooeypoo Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 okay wow, things are going too fast for me to answer. give me a second here. Mooeypoo, it has nothing to do with getting tired, power=work/time. The greater the weight on the bar the slower you will raise it, because the net force is lower. The power remains the same, the force and acceleration changes. Human being is NOT a good example because the human body doesn't apply constant force; it has varying other conditions that can slow you down or not slow you down. It's a BAD EXAMPLE, because it's NOT THE SAME *physically*. Different processes with the same apparent (note: APPARENT, not complete) result are *NOT* the same, and they should not be equated. I still don't get how this is related to the expansion of gases if you surround the sun, or anything else about PRESSURE.
mooeypoo Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 I can't help it.... it's the physics... it's screaming for my help!!!!
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 Torque is force times distance 1 HP=550lb-ft of WORK per SECOND. 550 lb-ft of work per second for 60 seconds equals 33,000 lb-ft of WORK per MINUTE. If you have a 1 lb load on the end of a 1 foot bar (1 lb-ft of TORQUE), and you rotate it 1 RPM, the load will travel 6.2832 feet (circumference of a 2 foot diamter circle) in one minute, which is 6.2832 lb-ft of WORK per MINUTE. 33,000 divided by 6.2832 equals 5252. That means 1 lb-ft of torque at 5252 RPM is equal to 1 HP, OR HP=torque*RPM/5252. That also means 6.2832 lb-ft of WORK per minute (1 lb-ft of torque at 1 RPM) divided by 33,000 equals .00019 HP 1 lb-ft of TORQUE times 1 RPM divided by 5252 equals .00019 HP 6.2832 lb-ft of WORK per MINUTE divided by 60 equals .10477 lb-ft of work per SECOND. Since 1 HP is 550 lb-ft of WORK per SECOND, .10477 divided by 550 equals .00019 HP
insane_alien Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 bring it back on topic and discuss pressurized gases or this thread will likely be closed.
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 bring it back on topic and discuss pressurized gases or this thread will likely be closed. I'm waiting for you to properly answer my question. Are the atoms volumes increasing? Are the number of atoms increasing? Are the atoms dividing (numbers growing) and volumes growing?
mooeypoo Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 Yeah, dude, you're all over the place. What does torque has to do with gas pressures?!
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 Yeah, dude, you're all over the place. What does torque has to do with gas pressures?! Everything! Force is created by a resistance. No resistance=no work=no power. Greater resistance, lower acceleration rate.
insane_alien Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 I'm waiting for you to properly answer my question. Are the atoms volumes increasing? Are the number of atoms increasing? Are the atoms dividing (numbers growing) and volumes growing? no, no, no, no. there, i believe i have answered these already and in more detail earlier. and again, resistance is a TYPE OF FORCE it is not force itself.
mooeypoo Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 Are you claiming that in order to see what goes on with pressurized gasses we need to look at torque? You need to go back to 9th grade physics, my friend, seriously now, I don't even know where to START explaining how wrong this entire discussion is. You are completely oversimplifying physics, is what you are. It's as if I will claim that an apple will keep bouncing endlessly after falling from a 7 story building because of Newton's laws of 'every action has a similar and opposite reaction'.
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 (edited) Are you claiming that in order to see what goes on with pressurized gasses we need to look at torque? You need to go back to 9th grade physics, my friend, seriously now, I don't even know where to START explaining how wrong this entire discussion is. Since it's so wrong you can pick just one part and show me where I go wrong? no, no, no, no. there, i believe i have answered these already and in more detail earlier. and again, resistance is a TYPE OF FORCE it is not force itself. What is "force itself?" I thought everything was relative? Edited October 10, 2008 by traveler multiple post merged
mooeypoo Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 Your comparison is wrong, and your attempt to explain what you mean by mixing different subjects of physics is not helping and is confusing. Go back to the topic at hand and stop jumping all over the place; you were talking about pressures, and people answered you, but you obviously didn't like their answers, because you kept claiming no one made a decent reply -- so how about you just, as straight forwardly as possible, without unneeded comparisons or opposing questions or anything that makes things more complicated than they are, just ASK your question. What do you want to know? What, exactly, in gas pressures doesn't work for you? what is it you disagree with you wonders about? Just ask to the point, my goodness, and stop jumping around in physical concepts that have nothing to do with one another.
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 Your comparison is wrong, and your attempt to explain what you mean by mixing different subjects of physics is not helping and is confusing. Go back to the topic at hand and stop jumping all over the place; you were talking about pressures, and people answered you, but you obviously didn't like their answers, because you kept claiming no one made a decent reply -- so how about you just, as straight forwardly as possible, without unneeded comparisons or opposing questions or anything that makes things more complicated than they are, just ASK your question. What do you want to know? What, exactly, in gas pressures doesn't work for you? what is it you disagree with you wonders about? Just ask to the point, my goodness, and stop jumping around in physical concepts that have nothing to do with one another. If you had a unified field theory, would it appear to others that you were jumping all over the place when explaining the same thing? NET FORCE!!!
mooeypoo Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 ... Okay, now prove it. Uhm, also I don't quite think the pair of words "NET FORCE" applies as a "unified theory".
insane_alien Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 no, because you would be talking about the unification of gravitational force with electro-magnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces. none of these requires resistance to operate. the last 3 require only the exchange of particles.
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 (edited) Your comparison is wrong, and your attempt to explain what you mean by mixing different subjects of physics is not helping and is confusing. Go back to the topic at hand and stop jumping all over the place; you were talking about pressures, and people answered you, but you obviously didn't like their answers, because you kept claiming no one made a decent reply -- so how about you just, as straight forwardly as possible, without unneeded comparisons or opposing questions or anything that makes things more complicated than they are, just ASK your question. What do you want to know? What, exactly, in gas pressures doesn't work for you? what is it you disagree with you wonders about? Just ask to the point, my goodness, and stop jumping around in physical concepts that have nothing to do with one another. The only way for the pressure to increase in the sphere is for the volume of the mass to expand! That means mass is being converted to energy, and when that happens, the mass decrease is proportional to the volume increase. If the volume of the sphere can't increase, pressure must build to the point of equilibrium. Edited October 10, 2008 by traveler
insane_alien Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 traveller, i have explained what pressure is to you twice already. both times you have completely ignored the ACTUAL DEFINITION and continue to assume that atoms some how magically expand. you ask for answers and ignore those given to you. what is the point of asking then?
mooeypoo Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 The only way for the pressure to increase in the sphere is for the volume of the mass to expand! That means mass is being converted to energy, and when that happens, the mass decrease is proportional to the volume increase. If the volume of the sphere can't increase, pressure must build to the point of equilibrium. That's not the only way. At least 4 people explained to you what the other = REALISTIC, PHYSICAL = ways are. At least 3 people explained, about 3 times already, what pressure is. You are ignoring them, and you keep repeating the same questions that were ALREADY ANSWERED. Troll. Reported.
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 the atoms in the sphere are not increasing in volume. Ok, so the atoms are staying the same volume. Are the number of atoms increasing?
Recommended Posts