[DMCForum] Re: You're both wrong! Attn: Rick/Martin

["cruznmd" <racuti1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John D: "Kinetic" energy. I had a brain cramp and couldn't remember 
the proper term. Thanks for that. Latent, was totally wrong.

Martin: The Law of Energy. I understand what you're saying and I 
agree with it. In my original statement, I got a little off the point 
at the end there. 

My original question was more or less answered by Rick:

(Is the expenditure of energy, "WORK" even if nothing is moving?)
In holding the wrench to 20 ft/lbs. and expending energy, are you 
conducting "work" even though you're not turning the bolt?
He says yes, "technically". What say you? Consider: If your robot is 
struggling against an obstacle or another robot, but not moving it is 
expending energy, but is it working? 

BTW, (switching gears here) I love watching Parliament debate. You 
guys grumble and yell. It has character and reminds me of what 
congressional debates must have been like centuries ago. Now congress 
engages in verbal chess, without emotion or candor. Sometimes it's 
depressing.

Rich A.

--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Martin Gutkowski <webmaster@xxxx> 
wrote:
> Simple answer. You can sit on a chair and not exert any energy. 
However 
> you are applying a force onto the chair (actually the chair is 
applying 
> a force upwards that is equal and opposite to the accelleration due 
to 
> gavity pulling you down - but that's beside the point).
> 
> You on that chair indeed have potential energy which will be 
transferred 
> to kinetic energy if one of the legs snaps.
> 
> You compress a spring, you have te same effect. You've transferred 
> energy into the spring which can be released at any time. BUT you 
cannot 
> remove that energy in any way. Energy cannot be created or 
destroyed.
> 
> Make sense?
> 
> Martin
> 
> cruznmd wrote:
> 
> >I can not believe I am allowing myself to be pulled into this 
> >nonsense but I have a question. I am NOT arguing, I only seek 
> >enlightenment.
> >
> >Rick you stated that if you hold a torque wrench at 20 ft/lbs. for 
an 
> >eternity no work is being done as long as you don't turn the bolt.
> >
> >In order to hold the torque wrench to 20 ft/lbs. that requires the 
> >expenditure of energy. Is not the expenditure of energy by 
> >definition, work?
> >
> >Well, maybe not. Supposed you tied the handle to something to hold 
> >the wrench. Then no one & nothing is expending energy. There -is- 
> >however, "potential" energy in the tension of the wrench handle. 
If 
> >the rope snapped, and the wrench flew off that would be latent? 
> >energy (energy in use/motion) and work would be done because the 
> >wrench moved.
> >
> >Now I'm all screwed up. I knew this was a bad idea. Help?
> >
> >Rich A.
> >
> >  
> >
> >  
> >

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.