magnified force because of a longer lever, from thin air?

[forufes]

you have a bolt.

you have two wrenches.

one short.

one double the length of the short one.

 

when you use the longer wrench, you're applying double the force on the bolt than when using the shorter wrench.

 

my quiz was, where did the excessive force come from? didn't you apply the same amount of force? so how come?

 

my answer was:

no force is created, none is added..

the force per unit angle density is higher..

meaning, it's not the force that's doubled..

it's the angle which the force is acting on that's been halfed..

the force is the same, you double the lever---> you halfen the angle under said force.

 

that's the logic behind momentum and torque equations.

 

so, in your opinion, is the answer: "because the force per unit angle density is higher" a retarded answer?

is the "new term" not one to be proud of, by its inventor?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

also meaning, for those who have understood so far, that if the force is quantified, the the degrees turned will be the same.

 

the reason why longer wrenches unscrew bolts, is because they concentrate the force on a smaller angle, enabling it to overcome the static friction coefficient, where a more despersed shorter lever can not.

Edited January 18, 2010 by forufes
Consecutive posts merged.

[insane_alien]

i explained this to you on IRC that torque depends on force and radius but you just chose to go 'lalala your wrong i'm right lalalala'

[forufes]

i never did that, now please, let us hear other members' inputs.

 

also i might add a request from the reader to compare between the following two answers to my previous quiz in the op, and say which is absolutely right, and which is downright wrong, and in case of similarity, to say which is better or more accurate.

 

A-

"because the force per unit angle density is higher"

 

B-

"because force is an unconserved quantity"

[swansont]

The force is unchanged. The torque is doubled.

 

No need to make up new terms.

[forufes]

so in your opinion the proposed new term doesn't give a better insight about how torque is doubled from an unchanged force because of a simply longer lever?

 

it doesn't lift some of the confusion to why is the torque doubled?

 

it doesn't have a higher logical explanatory value? though maybe a lower mathematical computation value?

 

thanks a lot for your input, appreciate it.

 

p.s could you answer post #3?

[ydoaPs]

i never did that, now please, let us hear other members' inputs.

 

Lying isn't a nice habit. There were other people in the channel. Better luck next time.

[forufes]

Lying isn't a nice habit. There were other people in the channel. Better luck next time.

...

1- is there a way to reproduce the chat history?

 

2-if i truly did as i am accused then:

a- i deeply apologize for doing so.

b- i deeply apologize for lying about it, and would like to point out that, may that be the case, i was and still am unaware of it.

 

3- could you please tell us what you think regarding the issues i raised in the op and #3?

[insane_alien]

the chat logs are kept on the server and are easily accesible by the admins

[ydoaPs]

...

1- is there a way to reproduce the chat history?

Yes, if someone was logging.

[Fuzzwood]

Simple: B

 

And for this reason, you apply the same force, but because the lever length is doubled, the number of radians you move through is halved. Conservation of energy proved. Same thing applies to gears if you need an analogy.

 

EDIT: little mistake here, as the post below says the number of radians stays the same; you need to move double the distance with the double-sized lever to travel through the same number of radians as before.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Fuzzwood

[insane_alien]

the number of radians you move through is halved

 

not quite, if you move the lever through 0.5 radians it will move 0.5 radians on both sides.

 

the linear difference travelled is different though.

[Fuzzwood]

Yeah my bad, that's what i meant.

[forufes]

fuzzwood, thanks for sharing, though i can't see how you chose B and explained it by A..also the transition from UNconservative force to conservation of energy..but thanks non the less..

now lets take a more objective approach.

everyone please re-read part B in #3..and notice the "un" in there..

http://www.health.uottawa.ca/biomech/courses/apa4311/energy.pps

seventh slide..

well?

which is correct and which is not? the info in the slide or statement B?

and hence, which of statements A and B is downright wrong?

[insane_alien]

also the transition from UNconservative force to conservation of energy.

 

don't mix energy and force, they are NOT the same thing at all.

[forufes]

tell it to Fuzzwood.

B-

"because force is an unconserved quantity"

 

Simple: B

 

And for this reason, you apply the same force, but because the lever length is doubled, the number of radians you move through is halved. Conservation of energy proved. Same thing applies to gears if you need an analogy.

not only are the quantites different, but one is conservative and the other is not, and so i said that i don't see the logic behind his choice, still i honestly thanked him for it, as most people didn't bother contributing at all, i also -in case you noticed- didn't call him a retard, and i wouldn't have banned him repeatedly if i was able to.

 

i'm also curious to what you think of the rest of the post you quoted, insane alien.

[swansont]

Conservative force vs nonconservative force is not the same as saying that force is a conserved quantity or not. A nonconservative force means that work is path dependent. A conservative force means that the work is not path dependent.

 

Forces are never conserved, as total energy is and mechanical energy and momentum can be. Those are different concepts.

[michel123456]

magnified force because of a longer lever, from thin air?

 

Not from "thin air".

Space (in his physical measurement=distance) is not neutral. In this case, as in many other based on the lever principle, the use of distance acts as the use of a force. But not distance on its own (thin air) you need matter-in-space (the lever itself) strong enough to transmit the force.

 

The fact that space is not neutral is known from antiquity (probably earlier than that) and the equations have been described since then (lever principle by Archimedes). I am happy that from time to time someone find that extraodinary, because we are so used to it that most of us find that a simple natural thing.