Hello all,

I am a bit ill at the minute and can't / can't be bothered to think
properly. Can anyone tell me how much energy is expended lifting 120kg
through 5 metres vertically please?

Thanks in advance,

David Paste.

David Paste wrote:
Hello all,

I am a bit ill at the minute and can't / can't be bothered to think
properly. Can anyone tell me how much energy is expended lifting 120kg
through 5 metres vertically please?

Thanks in advance,

David Paste.

117.72kJ

mass * g * height = increase in potential energy

Bob

Bob Minchin wrote:
David Paste wrote:
Hello all,

I am a bit ill at the minute and can't / can't be bothered to think
properly. Can anyone tell me how much energy is expended lifting 120kg
through 5 metres vertically please?

Thanks in advance,

David Paste.

117.72kJ

mass * g * height = increase in potential energy

Bob
oops! 5886kJ

brain fade

Bob Minchin wrote:
David Paste wrote:
Hello all,

I am a bit ill at the minute and can't / can't be bothered to think
properly. Can anyone tell me how much energy is expended lifting
120kg through 5 metres vertically please?

Thanks in advance,

David Paste.

117.72kJ

mass * g * height = increase in potential energy

So not a set answer then.

Planet Harry and Dennisworld may have a different g to planet Earth.

--
Adam

On Jan 7, 5:54*pm, Bob Minchin
wrote:
Bob Minchin wrote:
David Paste wrote:
Hello all,

I am a bit ill at the minute and can't / can't be bothered to think
properly. Can anyone tell me how much energy is expended lifting 120kg
through 5 metres vertically please?

Thanks in advance,

David Paste.

117.72kJ

mass * g * height = increase in potential energy

Bob

oops! 5886kJ

brain fade

Cheers, but is that kJ or J?

On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 10:09:49 -0800 (PST), David Paste wrote:

On Jan 7, 5:54Â*pm, Bob Minchin
wrote:
Bob Minchin wrote:
David Paste wrote:
Hello all,

I am a bit ill at the minute and can't / can't be bothered to think
properly. Can anyone tell me how much energy is expended lifting 120kg
through 5 metres vertically please?

Thanks in advance,

David Paste.

117.72kJ

mass * g * height = increase in potential energy

Bob

oops! 5886kJ

brain fade

Cheers, but is that kJ or J?

J
--
(º€¢.¸(¨*€¢.¸ ¸.€¢*¨)¸.€¢Âº)
.€¢Â°€¢. Nik .€¢Â°€¢.
(¸.€¢Âº(¸.€¢Â¨* *¨€¢.¸)º€¢.¸)

On 07/01/2012 17:45, David Paste wrote:
Hello all,

I am a bit ill at the minute and can't / can't be bothered to think
properly. Can anyone tell me how much energy is expended lifting 120kg
through 5 metres vertically please?

about 6kJ


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 17:56:25 -0000, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Bob Minchin wrote:
David Paste wrote:
Hello all,

I am a bit ill at the minute and can't / can't be bothered to think
properly. Can anyone tell me how much energy is expended lifting
120kg through 5 metres vertically please?

Thanks in advance,

David Paste.

117.72kJ

mass * g * height = increase in potential energy

So not a set answer then.

Planet Harry and Dennisworld may have a different g to planet Earth.


The kilo prefix deems to be optional in calorie food labeling.
I suppose it makes dieting 100 times more effective.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

The kilo prefix deems to be optional in calorie food labeling.
I suppose it makes dieting 100 times more effective.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

Should that not be 1000?

"Graham." wrote in message
...

Planet Harry and Dennisworld may have a different g to planet Earth.


The kilo prefix deems to be optional in calorie food labeling.
I suppose it makes dieting 100 times more effective.

At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on Earth (not that I
could expect an electrician to know).

On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 20:56:13 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on Earth

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Jan 7, 8:56*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:

At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on Earth (not that I
could expect an electrician to know).

By how much does it change?

In message
,
David Paste writes
Hello all,

I am a bit ill at the minute and can't / can't be bothered to think
properly. Can anyone tell me how much energy is expended lifting 120kg
through 5 metres vertically please?

Buy a stair lift



--
geoff

Graham. wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 17:56:25 -0000, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Bob Minchin wrote:
David Paste wrote:
Hello all,

I am a bit ill at the minute and can't / can't be bothered to think
properly. Can anyone tell me how much energy is expended lifting
120kg through 5 metres vertically please?

Thanks in advance,

David Paste.

117.72kJ

mass * g * height = increase in potential energy

So not a set answer then.

Planet Harry and Dennisworld may have a different g to planet Earth.


The kilo prefix deems to be optional in calorie food labeling.
I suppose it makes dieting 100 times more effective.


Odd enough, but true:
The *kilo*gram is a SI _base_ unit(what the french use ;-) )

So it is 5886 J (with g=9.81 m*s^-2)

JK

On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:45:26 -0800 (PST), David Paste wrote:

Hello all,

I am a bit ill at the minute and can't / can't be bothered to think
properly. Can anyone tell me how much energy is expended lifting 120kg
through 5 metres vertically please?

Thanks in advance,

David Paste.

so about 0.0016 kWh
--
(º€¢.¸(¨*€¢.¸ ¸.€¢*¨)¸.€¢Âº)
.€¢Â°€¢. Nik .€¢Â°€¢.
(¸.€¢Âº(¸.€¢Â¨* *¨€¢.¸)º€¢.¸)

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Graham." wrote in message
.. .

Planet Harry and Dennisworld may have a different g to planet Earth.


The kilo prefix deems to be optional in calorie food labeling.
I suppose it makes dieting 100 times more effective.

At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on Earth (not
that I could expect an electrician to know).

That's not universally accepted denboi - there's an experiment going on
ATM to test it.

You don't spend millions on such a project if there is no doubt

--
geoff

"David Paste" wrote in message
...
On Jan 7, 8:56 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:

At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on Earth (not that
I
could expect an electrician to know).

By how much does it change?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-nasa-science/

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Graham." wrote in message
. ..

Planet Harry and Dennisworld may have a different g to planet Earth.


The kilo prefix deems to be optional in calorie food labeling.
I suppose it makes dieting 100 times more effective.

At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on Earth (not that I
could expect an electrician to know).

That's not universally accepted denboi - there's an experiment going on
ATM to test it.

Really?
And I thought it was a defined constant, unlike the actual gravitational
force of the Earth.


You don't spend millions on such a project if there is no doubt

I wonder why you need to spend millions to redefine a constant?

"dennis@home" wrote:
"Graham." wrote in message
...

Planet Harry and Dennisworld may have a different g to planet Earth.


The kilo prefix deems to be optional in calorie food labeling.
I suppose it makes dieting 100 times more effective.

At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on Earth (not that
I could expect an electrician to know).

g is the force of gravity on earth which changes depending on several
factors.

G is a constant.

Not that I expect a ****wit to know.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 20:56:13 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on Earth

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

In Dennisworld E=mc2 has a different meaning to the rest of the universe as
in Dennisworld c=30mph.


--
Adam

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Graham." wrote in message
...

Planet Harry and Dennisworld may have a different g to planet Earth.


The kilo prefix deems to be optional in calorie food labeling.
I suppose it makes dieting 100 times more effective.

At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on Earth (not
that I could expect an electrician to know).

That's not universally accepted denboi - there's an experiment going
on ATM to test it.

Really?
And I thought it was a defined constant, unlike the actual
gravitational force of the Earth.


Not what I was looking for but

For example

"Abstract
In 1687, Isaac Newton published the universal law of gravitation
stating that two bodies attract each other with a force proportional to
the
product of their masses and the inverse square of the distance. The
constant
of proportionality, G, is one of the fundamental constants of nature. As
the
precision of measurements increased the disparity between the values of
G,
gathered by different groups, surprisingly increased [1-16]. This unique
situation was reflected by the 1998 CODATA decision to increase the
relative G uncertainty from 0.013% to 0.15 % [17]. Our repetitive
measurements of the gravitational constant (G) show that G varies
significantly with the orientation of the test masses relative to the
system of
fixed stars, as was predicted by the Attractive Universe Theory [18,19].
The
distances between the test masses were in the decimeter range. We have
observed that G changes with the orientation by at least 0.054%."


You don't spend millions on such a project if there is no doubt

I wonder why you need to spend millions to redefine a constant?

I think you just answered your own question there denboi


--
geoff

****wit "Steve Firth" incorrectly wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote:
"Graham." wrote in message
...

Planet Harry and Dennisworld may have a different g to planet Earth.


The kilo prefix deems to be optional in calorie food labeling.
I suppose it makes dieting 100 times more effective.

At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on Earth (not that
I could expect an electrician to know).

g is the force of gravity on earth which changes depending on several
factors.

G is a constant.

Not that I expect a ****wit to know.

"One g is the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface and is the
standard gravity (symbol: gn), defined as 9.80665 metres per second
squared,[3] or equivalently 9.80665 newtons of force per kilogram of mass."

"Also "g" should not be confused with "G", which is the standard symbol for
the gravitational constant"

"dennis@home" wrote:
****wit "Steve Firth" incorrectly wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote:
"Graham." wrote in message
...

Planet Harry and Dennisworld may have a different g to planet Earth.


The kilo prefix deems to be optional in calorie food labeling.
I suppose it makes dieting 100 times more effective.

At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on Earth (not that
I could expect an electrician to know).

g is the force of gravity on earth which changes depending on several
factors.

G is a constant.

Not that I expect a ****wit to know.

"One g is the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface and is
the standard gravity (symbol: gn), defined as 9.80665 metres per second
squared,[3] or equivalently 9.80665 newtons of force per kilogram of mass."

"Also "g" should not be confused with "G", which is the standard symbol
for the gravitational constant"

Which bit of what you quoted do you not understand dickness?

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Graham." wrote in message
m...

Planet Harry and Dennisworld may have a different g to planet Earth.


The kilo prefix deems to be optional in calorie food labeling.
I suppose it makes dieting 100 times more effective.

At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on Earth (not that
I could expect an electrician to know).

That's not universally accepted denboi - there's an experiment going on
ATM to test it.

Really?
And I thought it was a defined constant, unlike the actual gravitational
force of the Earth.


Not what I was looking for but

g != G

On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 22:59:34 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Graham." wrote in message
om...

Planet Harry and Dennisworld may have a different g to planet Earth.


The kilo prefix deems to be optional in calorie food labeling.
I suppose it makes dieting 100 times more effective.

At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on Earth (not that
I could expect an electrician to know).

That's not universally accepted denboi - there's an experiment going on
ATM to test it.

Really?
And I thought it was a defined constant, unlike the actual gravitational
force of the Earth.


Not what I was looking for but

g != G


true but as you seem to want to be pedantic g is the gravitational field
strength at a point in space (in its general definition) the idea of the
'force of gravity' being the force of attraction between 2 bodies of
masses m1 and m2 is only the same as g if one of the masses has a value of
1kg g=-Gm/r^2 F=-Gm1m2/r^2 so its trivial to see that F=g if m1 or m2 is
1kg
--
(º€¢.¸(¨*€¢.¸ ¸.€¢*¨)¸.€¢Âº)
.€¢Â°€¢. Nik .€¢Â°€¢.
(¸.€¢Âº(¸.€¢Â¨* *¨€¢.¸)º€¢.¸)

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Graham." wrote in message
om...

Planet Harry and Dennisworld may have a different g to planet Earth.


The kilo prefix deems to be optional in calorie food labeling.
I suppose it makes dieting 100 times more effective.

At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on Earth (not
that I could expect an electrician to know).

That's not universally accepted denboi - there's an experiment
going on ATM to test it.

Really?
And I thought it was a defined constant, unlike the actual
gravitational force of the Earth.


Not what I was looking for but

g != G



No - It clearly uses a capital "G" if you look

--
geoff

On Jan 7, 9:18*pm, geoff wrote:

Buy a stair lift

--
geoff

Ha ha! Nearly...!

On Jan 7, 10:09*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...new-map-earth-...

So you don't know offhand?

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article , geoff
wrote:

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Graham." wrote in message
.. .

Planet Harry and Dennisworld may have a different g to planet Earth.


The kilo prefix deems to be optional in calorie food labeling.
I suppose it makes dieting 100 times more effective.

At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on Earth (not
that I could expect an electrician to know).
That's not universally accepted denboi - there's an experiment going
on ATM to test it.
You don't spend millions on such a project if there is no doubt

You don't need to spend millions to know that. The gravitational force
experienced by say a person is not the same at all points on the
planet, for a variety of reasons, such as the fact that the earth is
not a perfect sphere, that it'll depend on your altitude above sea
level, whether you are next to a large mass (such as a mountain).
Doesn't vary by much, but it varies.


Of course it varies, while I was in Indonesia, a friend there was making
a gravitational map of Java for the BGS


--
geoff

In message

g, Steve Firth writes
"dennis@home" wrote:
"Graham." wrote in message
...

Planet Harry and Dennisworld may have a different g to planet Earth.


The kilo prefix deems to be optional in calorie food labeling.
I suppose it makes dieting 100 times more effective.

At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on Earth (not that
I could expect an electrician to know).

g is the force of gravity on earth which changes depending on several
factors.

G is a constant.


There seems to be data showing that G is changing over time (IIRC there
are also similar claims for c) and that it has a direction in space (
somewhat like the aether)

While it may or may not be true, the jury's still out

--
geoff

"Ghostrecon" wrote in message
.. .


true but as you seem to want to be pedantic g

I am not being pedantic, I am using it in the context of the thread where it
is a defined constant.
The post I made was a specific response to the ARW idiot post about it being
different on other worlds, which it isn't.
As I sated the gravitational force on Earth does actually vary unlike "g" in
the context of the thread.

The other posts are just the usual idiots trying to score the mythical
points they appear to be playing for.
Shame they are wrong as usual.

"David Paste" wrote in message
...
On Jan 7, 10:09 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...new-map-earth-...

So you don't know offhand?

It varies, by how much? You will have to look it up.
I have no need to know by how much it varies as the constant is defined and
hence fixed, probably at some value between the min and the max.

On Jan 8, 12:19*am, "dennis@home"
wrote:

It varies, by how much? You will have to look it up.

Why didn't you say you don't know in the first place?

I have no need to know by how much it varies as the constant is defined and
hence fixed, probably at some value between the min and the max.

That gravity varies is not startling news to anyone with an A-level in
physics, or even anyone who had a half-competent science teacher at
secondary school.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Ghostrecon" wrote in message
.. .


snip

The other posts are just the usual idiots trying to score the mythical
points they appear to be playing for.

You're not, of course?

Dennis, sweetheart, give it up sunshine, really. Everyone and his dog
understands that you're an idiot.
Is that not obvious to you? My god but you must have thick skin.

On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 00:19:14 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

I have no need to know by how much it varies as the constant is defined
and hence fixed, probably at some value between the min and the max.

The constant is fixed? Wow, you are clever...

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 00:17:08 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

I am not being pedantic, I am using it in the context of the thread
where it is a defined constant.

Except it's not. The context is the potential energy equation Pe =
mgh. The g (lowercase) is the strength of the local gravitational
field it is not the same as G (upper case) the gravitational
constant.

As I sated the gravitational force on Earth does actually vary unlike
"g" in the context of the thread.

You said "At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on
Earth"

Note lowercase "g" which is "the force of gravity on Earth", so that
sentance contradicts itself.

--
Cheers
Dave.

geoff wrote:
In message

g, Steve Firth writes
"dennis@home" wrote:
"Graham." wrote in message
...

Planet Harry and Dennisworld may have a different g to planet Earth.


The kilo prefix deems to be optional in calorie food labeling.
I suppose it makes dieting 100 times more effective.

At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on Earth (not that
I could expect an electrician to know).

g is the force of gravity on earth which changes depending on several
factors.

G is a constant.


There seems to be data showing that G is changing over time (IIRC there
are also similar claims for c) and that it has a direction in space (
somewhat like the aether)

While it may or may not be true, the jury's still out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 00:17:08 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

I am not being pedantic, I am using it in the context of the thread
where it is a defined constant.

Except it's not. The context is the potential energy equation Pe =
mgh. The g (lowercase) is the strength of the local gravitational
field it is not the same as G (upper case) the gravitational
constant.

As I sated the gravitational force on Earth does actually vary unlike
"g" in the context of the thread.

You said "At least g doesn't change unlike the force of gravity on
Earth"

Note lowercase "g" which is "the force of gravity on Earth", so that
sentance contradicts itself.

He falls for it everytime and then blames the spellchecker.

--
Adam

"geoff" wrote in message
...


No - It clearly uses a capital "G" if you look

You can argue about something else if you want to but I am not going to.

"David Paste" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 12:19 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:

It varies, by how much? You will have to look it up.

Why didn't you say you don't know in the first place?

Why did you expect me to know in the first place.
Its not exactly an important or easy to remember piece of information and
you can look it up as easily as I can.


I have no need to know by how much it varies as the constant is defined
and
hence fixed, probably at some value between the min and the max.

That gravity varies is not startling news to anyone with an A-level in
physics, or even anyone who had a half-competent science teacher at
secondary school.

Who said it was a difficult concept?
Are you trying to cause trouble? You have a long way to go before you are
anywhere as bad as ARW.
Its probably not worth putting the effort in IMNSHO.