If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.
Special Thanks To:
Aaron Holmes
Aaron Wheeler
Adam Horden
Alan Scrimgeour
Andre
Andrew Haynes
Anonymous000
asabase
Austin Weil
barney
Barry
Bert Hickman
Bill Kukowski
Blitzorn
Brandon Paradelas
Bruce Bowling
BubeeMike
Byong Park
Cesiumsponge
Chris F.
Chris Hooper
Corey Worthington
Derek Woodroffe
Dalus
Dan Strother
Daniel Davis
Daniel Uhrenholt
datasheetarchive
Dave Billington
Dave Marshall
David F.
Dennis Rogers
drelectrix
Dr. John Gudenas
Dr. Spark
E.TexasTesla
eastvoltresearch
Eirik Taylor
Erik Dyakov
Erlend^SE
Finn Hammer
Firebug24k
GalliumMan
Gary Peterson
George Slade
GhostNull
Gordon Mcknight
Graham Armitage
Grant
GreySoul
Henry H
IamSmooth
In memory of Leo Powning
Jacob Cash
James Howells
James Pawson
Jeff Greenfield
Jeff Thomas
Jesse Frost
Jim Mitchell
jlr134
Joe Mastroianni
John Forcina
John Oberg
John Willcutt
Jon Newcomb
klugesmith
Leslie Wright
Lutz Hoffman
Mads Barnkob
Martin King
Mats Karlsson
Matt Gibson
Matthew Guidry
mbd
Michael D'Angelo
Mikkel
mileswaldron
mister_rf
Neil Foster
Nick de Smith
Nick Soroka
nicklenorp
Nik
Norman Stanley
Patrick Coleman
Paul Brodie
Paul Jordan
Paul Montgomery
Ped
Peter Krogen
Peter Terren
PhilGood
Richard Feldman
Robert Bush
Royce Bailey
Scott Fusare
Scott Newman
smiffy
Stella
Steven Busic
Steve Conner
Steve Jones
Steve Ward
Sulaiman
Thomas Coyle
Thomas A. Wallace
Thomas W
Timo
Torch
Ulf Jonsson
vasil
Vaxian
vladi mazzilli
wastehl
Weston
William Kim
William N.
William Stehl
Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Registered Member #72
Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 08:29AM
Location: UK St. Albans
Posts: 1659
Hey, no problem. Thanks for the apology. Even with your name, I hadn't realised that language may be a consideration, take that as a compliment on the quality of your English. That criticism of your grammar/spelling was pretty cheap of me, and for which I apologise.
This is an interesting reference from the wikipedia page, reference #8
The National Standard of Canada, CAN/CSA-Z234.1-89 Canadian Metric Practice Guide, January 1989:
5.7.3 Considerable confusion exists in the use of the term "weight." In commercial and everyday use, the term "weight" nearly always means mass. In science and technology "weight" has primarily meant a force due to gravity. In scientific and technical work, the term "weight" should be replaced by the term "mass" or "force," depending on the application.
5.7.4 The use of the verb "to weigh" meaning "to determine the mass of," e.g., "I weighed this object and determined its mass to be 5 kg," is correct.
Registered Member #62109
Joined: Sun Jan 28 2018, 10:00PM
Location:
Posts: 0
I don't really got the idea of the first post. Maybe because english is not my first language... You mean the people who uses "everyday objects" to compare size and these things? Here people love to use the area unit called football fields. For height they use eiffel towers stack. Weight is measured in whales or cars. The biggest confusion comes with gun calibers in the news, since they don't even imagine that .38 means a fraction of an inch. Then sometimes they say 38mm. Can you imagine a revolver with a 38mm bullet. They even call 380mm caliber sometimes. Which is a very big gun to carry around.
Registered Member #2906
Joined: Sun Jun 06 2010, 02:20AM
Location: Dresden, Germany
Posts: 727
Sorry for the late response, i am currently doing a major overhaul of my work space. I wanted to get back to the original topic. Although i just quit my job at the university, being a teacher there wasnt only a job, but a passion. Given the english fuck up with the word "weight" (scientific vs every-day use) one could now ague again (with confidence this time) if explaining forces to someone would benefit from removing this word from such a context. But this you already stated in your quotes. Maybe teaching about "force" outside the context of gravity is much more fruitful since everyone can relate to acceleration in some way (car, elevator, ...) this would be better. Specially when talking about blue whales, one could argue, since its lives basically weightless, its "weight" is not intuitive at all ^_^ This brings me to another point: i think equivalences are nice for a start, but actually using them as thought model can become complicated. I dont think thats a major issue, but it might be one after all: i lived through a money system change (to EURO) and i can observe a lot of people even after >15 years who still relate to prices in the old currency so they are constantly converting back. Relating to Forces with masses in gravity can seed a bad thought pattern.
Talking about energy is very complicated and tricky and a topic on it own. The problem here is, that energy is not a thing but ONLY a mathematical model or a relation. Nothing has energy; its a mathematical transfer helper or whatever you call it. You cant define energy (the same problem have "fields"), this is why there are a lot of energy types such as heat, electro static, magnetic, potential, kinetic and actually.. well and Einstein added "mass" to this list While every energy is different, they are all the same and can be converted. Thinking about energy as a thing is somewhat wrong, so assigning equivalences related to objects is even worse ^_°. Also one should consider if one chooses to teach with lossy energies like friction heat, or energies that can convert back and forth like potential <-> kinetic in a pendulum. I think specially in the non-recoverable energy conversions should be delayed until the concept of energy conservation is understood. Recoverable energy might be "One Joule can lift 1kg of mass 10cm up." and relating to the heat capacity of water "like 4.2J can heat up 1g of water 1K." Why the first equivalence is easy for smaller energies, the water-equivalence is easier for higher energies like "you could boil x amount of water with the heat dissipated of the breaks of a train when stopping from 100 km/h". The interesting part about the heat energy is that it is somewhat unrecoverable, but since you have warm water to wash your hands with in the end, you kind of think about it using this energy again ^_^ Very strange. [and yes, i know one can re-use heat energy with special machines that actually have over 100% efficiency - strange enough]
Again, its always better to know more about the thing one teaches as its necessary, so consider watching more than once
Btw: i have now installed a spell checker in my firefox. I had one in Chrome and i had better text quality. It always bothered me that the german distribution of firefox has no spell checkers buit-in due to copyright reasons.. thats now fixed I hope my text hurt less now.
Registered Member #27
Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058
A machine can have more than 100% efficiency but a system as a whole can't. So a heat pump that uses 100W of power can give off 400W of heat at one end. If you include the whole machine and the environment it is in then no energy has been created.
Registered Member #62109
Joined: Sun Jan 28 2018, 10:00PM
Location:
Posts: 0
Yes but it is a pump. I don't think that shoul be read as over 100%.
If I have a truck loaded with 10 tons of charged lithium batteries and move them 100 meters downhill while using an alternator as brake, these refrigeration companies would say it is a billion % efficient. But it is not. It just moved the energy somewhere else. It didn't create it.
Registered Member #2906
Joined: Sun Jun 06 2010, 02:20AM
Location: Dresden, Germany
Posts: 727
You are arguing with the argument of conservation of energy. Think about it: it is always true. How then, can anything have _less_ than 100% efficiency. While conservation of energy is a law of nature, efficiency is a man made engineering definition. Consider my coilgun: its efficiency is defined by me (and others that agree) as KineticEnergy / ElectricalEnergy. Of course there is heat generated - thats exactly what i consider as loss. Now in a refrigerator you have Eff = HeatOutput / PowerInput. This is lager than 100% because we consider the Heat output as gain - in winter at least ^_^ .
Registered Member #62109
Joined: Sun Jan 28 2018, 10:00PM
Location:
Posts: 0
Ok I got it from this point, the way this term is used is what doesn't sink. Because even knowing it will move a lot more energy than it uses, the electric bill only increase. I think we should only use over 100% if the air system was throwing back energy into the line which is impossible. At least giving more than it is using is. But thats seems to be a semantic problem I'm having.
The problem here is, that energy is not a thing but ONLY a mathematical model or a relation. Nothing has energy; its a mathematical transfer helper or whatever you call it. You cant define energy (the same problem have "fields"), this is why there are a lot of energy types such as heat, electro static, magnetic, potential, kinetic and actually.. well and Einstein added "mass" to this list While every energy is different, they are all the same and can be converted.
I agree with most of this, but I wouldn't go as far as energy not being definable. It's a value in the mathematical description of a physical system. In classical mechanics it is the sum of kinetic and potential energy, in quantum mechanics the Hamiltonian operator.
Classical mechanics is not a complete theory, so if you want to add e.g. electric and magnetic forces you have to include electric potentials (=energy) and vector potentials for the magnetic forces. Beyond this, there are nuclear forces with their own form of energy.
You might even want to add human "energy" as a form of energy to this. But due to the lack of a quantitative description of human behaviour, this attribution is vague.
Registered Member #3414
Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245
I used to have an engineering shop, in a previous life in my distant past, and while most of my clientele were lovely people, you always get a few difficult customers who consistently argue the toss.....anyway, to cut a long story short, I got so fed up with this bloke, and just wanted him out of my workshop, I started talking in Arbits......Eventually he stopped me, and asked what an Arbit was, to which I replied "It's the arbitary unit'......He turned and walked out
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.
Blue whales, tennis courts and other non-SI units
While every energy is different, they are all the same and can be converted.
I hope my text hurt less now.
