flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > energy - i got some questions

Goto page Previous  1, 2
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8904
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
malpolud wrote:
sleepsleep no offence, but how come, you being a successful IT person have so small knowledge about basic physics? Wink


well, i am not so good in IT, in fact, i guess i am the worse one in this forum,
always lurking in heap section Laughing

basic physics... i am the only human on earth now, i start everything from scratch. Laughing
Post 11 Nov 2012, 15:52
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cod3b453



Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 619
cod3b453
revolution wrote:
cod3b453 wrote:
If we eliminate these inefficiencies (and the atmosphere) and take time into account, the only useful value you will obtain is the power of the helicopter ...
Erm, a helicopter cannot fly without air. It has nothing to push against. Wink
Made me laugh when I wrote it too but don't worry I put the air back so we can all breathe again Very Happy
Post 11 Nov 2012, 16:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
malpolud



Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 344
Location: Broken hippocampus
malpolud
sleepsleep wrote:
always lurking in heap section Laughing
So do I! Smile

_________________
There's nothing special about it,
It's either there when you're born or not.
Post 11 Nov 2012, 16:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8904
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
is that any method of lifting 1 pound to 9 inches will always assume to use 1 joule?
and why 1 pound to 9 inches? not 10 inches or 2 pound to 5 inches ?

there are probably thousand methods to lift 1 pound to 9 inches

now assume a block of rock, the initial energy to push the rock move will be higher than the energy to maintain the rock in motion, (i guess so)

so this 1 joule doesn't care about the difference initial energy to lift the things up and the energy to maintain the speed to 9 inches,

they wrap the process to 1 joule, is that ok?
Post 12 Nov 2012, 11:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8904
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
what if i take this 1 pound, lift it to 9 inches
(so 1 joule here)
tag it to pendulum, let it swing,

input = 1 joule of energy, object then got more than 1 joule potential energy
the object will swing until it stops.

damn, it is complex.
Laughing


Description: 1 pound with pendulum
Filesize: 3.7 KB
Viewed: 1891 Time(s)

1pound.PNG


Post 12 Nov 2012, 11:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
sleepsleep wrote:
is that any method of lifting 1 pound to 9 inches will always assume to use 1 joule?
and why 1 pound to 9 inches? not 10 inches or 2 pound to 5 inches ?
Because it is metric. Calculate for 1kg in standard Earth gravity and see how far it can be lifted with one joule of energy.
sleepsleep wrote:
input = 1 joule of energy, object then got more than 1 joule potential energy
What makes you think it has more the 1 joule of potential energy?
Post 12 Nov 2012, 12:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8904
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
revolution wrote:

What makes you think it has more the 1 joule of potential energy?

i use 1 joule to lift 1 pound to 9 inches height
i let it off, the ball swing from right to left

- since the ball want to reach ground because of gravity,

- the ball moves or get attracted to middle

- but since the ball is connected by string to the pendulum, so we got friction there that could slow down the ball and decrease its "frictionless speed" to move down

- the ball reach middle, but since it moves so fast, it gain some sort of energy there, and able to move up to left (since it tied to the pendulum)

- but due to some wasted energy (friction, sound, heat), it can't moves to 9 inches, maybe 7 inches

- once it reaches 7 inches, it uses up all the energy to move upwards, then gravity attract the ball to move nearest to ground.

- process continue until the ball at a location nearest to ground.

all the swing right to left, left to right, 7 inches, 5 inches, 3 inches, 1 inches

i assume to be at above positions, it needs energy since, it moves from a lower point to a higher point,

and is more than 1 joule.





is lifting 1 pound to 9 inches (1 joule) is equal to release 1 pound at 9 inches to 0 inch ?

maybe no, since 1 pound could penetrate deeper to ground, maybe - 0.7 inches?
Post 12 Nov 2012, 14:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
malpolud



Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 344
Location: Broken hippocampus
malpolud
Man, while learning such things you don't take things like friction. If you understand basic rules of mechanics you can take into account some other things like friction between mechanisms and gases, for very complex calculations.

If there would be no friction (in the air and in the connecting line in the pendulum), the pendulum would work for ever - this is the rule of energy flow.
Post 12 Nov 2012, 15:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8904
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
yeah, rule of energy, cannot be created or destroy, like god,,hahaha,,

and universe keeps on expanding,
keep on turning edge of void into space, all right!

Laughing

since in a no friction world (air and connecting line), we still need gravity,

and the pendulum will swing forever, (so gravity somehow contribute some sort of energy to this process)
Post 12 Nov 2012, 16:18
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
malpolud



Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 344
Location: Broken hippocampus
malpolud
It is not that we dont like friction.

It is just that to understand some processes you can simplify some things. You can make some very accurate calculations without concerning energy looses. After you know how to make these calculations, you can add certain ways of energy looses.

It is just classical mechanics, rules used in macro world in 99,9(9)% of machines in the earth Wink

For nano-world, some behaviors of particles are described by quantum mechanics.
The expanding universe is a very complex concern.

Gravity does not contribute energy.

Energy is a potential to make certain amount of work (work == energy). When you have 1 liter of petrol, a car burning it will use the whole energy stored in it. (aprox 40 MJ). Some of it will get transfered into revolving movement of the engine - efficiency of the transformation depends on the kind of the engine, the load and rotation speed. Rest of the energy will be transfered into heat, noise, some of it will get burned in the exhaust pipe (therefore not pushing pistons), some energy won't be released due to incomplete combustion of HC's, some of the energy will be lost into the gearbox, some of it in the tires, some in the friction in the oil lubricating the engine. Average efficiency of a piston combustion engine is about 20-25%.

For your further concerns I will tell you that the power is an ability to make certain amount of work in a certain time Wink
Go on, with your marvelous ideas you will invent incredible things.


Last edited by malpolud on 12 Nov 2012, 17:16; edited 1 time in total
Post 12 Nov 2012, 16:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
AsmGuru62



Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Posts: 1411
Location: Toronto, Canada
AsmGuru62
"It is not that we dont like friction."

Smile

For some reason this statement made me smile.
Good stuff.
Post 12 Nov 2012, 17:02
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
malpolud



Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 344
Location: Broken hippocampus
malpolud
It made me smile as well, after I read it Very Happy
Post 12 Nov 2012, 17:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.