"Fredxxx" wrote in message news ..

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams

....

On Saturday, 7 October 2017 13:09:51 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

Oh dear.

On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

"Fredxxx" wrote in message news
On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

It was posted in response to this claim of yours.

Which for some reason you chose to snip.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message news ..

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

So I can only ask you again

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams

....

michael adams wrote:

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

It was posted in response to this claim of yours.

Which for some reason you chose to snip.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase
in kinetic energy?

So I can only ask you again

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



If you have no apples is there any particular problem in increasing the
number of apples you have? Compared with already having some apples. I
can see that negative apples would create a problem, but not one that a
vector quantity would share. For aeroplanes in particular, acceleration
in one direction may be necessary despite velocity being in another.
The behaviour of kinetic energy in this case is harder to calculate, but
follows rules.


--

Roger Hayter

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

It was posted in response to this claim of yours.

Which for some reason you chose to snip.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase
in kinetic energy?

So I can only ask you again

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



If you have no apples is there any particular problem in increasing the
number of apples you have?

Not if the apples can self generate, no.

(Which is equivalent to applying Fred's definition to a stationary
vehicle)

It might be the foundation of a very profitable business
in fact.

But otherwise it would require an outside agency to provide the
apples.


michael adams

....

michael adams wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

It was posted in response to this claim of yours.

Which for some reason you chose to snip.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase
in kinetic energy?

So I can only ask you again

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



If you have no apples is there any particular problem in increasing the
number of apples you have?

Not if the apples can self generate, no.

(Which is equivalent to applying Fred's definition to a stationary
vehicle)

It might be the foundation of a very profitable business
in fact.

But otherwise it would require an outside agency to provide the
apples.


michael adams

...
If you accelerate a moving car in the direction of its motion, its
kinetic energy increases. If you accelerate a stationary[1] car, it
acquires kinetic energy. I think I am missing the problem.

[1] Stationary only in our local frame of reference, of course, but
that has no relevance at the sort of speeds we are talking about.

--

Roger Hayter

On 07/10/2017 14:28, michael adams wrote:
"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

It was posted in response to this claim of yours.

Which for some reason you chose to snip.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase
in kinetic energy?

So I can only ask you again

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



If you have no apples is there any particular problem in increasing the
number of apples you have?

Not if the apples can self generate, no.

You might receive a more meaningful answer in uk.rec.gardening

On Saturday, 7 October 2017 14:01:48 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news
On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

need one say more

On 07/10/2017 14:31, wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 14:01:48 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news
On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

need one say more

I assume he has in mind the way

dv/dt=p/(mv)

begs the question "does this mean you get infinite acceleration when the
vehicle is stationary"? And I assume he is looking for the answer "no
because the *useful* power delivered is also nil when the vehicle is
stationary".

I do not know if he is deliberately trolling by starting a new thread
without quoting the relevant preceding post(s) or just striving to be
seen as too clever by half.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Saturday, 7 October 2017 15:07:02 UTC+1, Robin wrote:
On 07/10/2017 14:31, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 14:01:48 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

need one say more

I assume he has in mind the way

dv/dt=p/(mv)

begs the question "does this mean you get infinite acceleration when the
vehicle is stationary"? And I assume he is looking for the answer "no
because the *useful* power delivered is also nil when the vehicle is
stationary".

I do not know if he is deliberately trolling by starting a new thread
without quoting the relevant preceding post(s) or just striving to be
seen as too clever by half.

Having read Michael before I doubt he has put a moment of thought into either point. Or any other.


NT

"Robin" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2017 14:31, wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 14:01:48 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

need one say more

I assume he has in mind the way

dv/dt=p/(mv)

begs the question "does this mean you get infinite acceleration when the vehicle is
stationary"? And I assume he is looking for the answer "no because the *useful* power
delivered is also nil when the vehicle is stationary".

I do not know if he is deliberately trolling by starting a new thread without quoting
the relevant preceding post(s) or just striving to be seen as too clever by half.

I'm simply asking Fred a simple question.

I can only say I'm sorry if my doing this upsets you so much that you
feel you the need to comment; but there's not that much else I
offer you by way of reassurance, I'm afraid.

Who would have thought that one simple question could cause
so much fuss ?


michael adams

....










--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin wrote:

On 07/10/2017 14:31, wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 14:01:48 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news wrote:
snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

need one say more

I assume he has in mind the way

dv/dt=p/(mv)

begs the question "does this mean you get infinite acceleration when the
vehicle is stationary"? And I assume he is looking for the answer "no
because the *useful* power delivered is also nil when the vehicle is
stationary".

We are also talking about cars, and we know that in practice moving off
from stationary is a rather discontinuous process. But it is also true
that in any real car the acceleration at low speed is very much limited
by the traction the tyre can achieve rather than the power the engine
can produce. So the usable torque will be equivalent to quite low
engine power. Drag racing is another issue. It was unwise to stray
from the 60mph.


I do not know if he is deliberately trolling by starting a new thread
without quoting the relevant preceding post(s) or just striving to be
seen as too clever by half.


--

Roger Hayter

"Robin" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2017 14:31, wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 14:01:48 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

need one say more

I assume he has in mind the way

dv/dt=p/(mv)

begs the question "does this mean you get infinite acceleration when the
vehicle is stationary"? And I assume he is looking for the answer "no
because the *useful* power delivered is also nil when the vehicle is
stationary".

I do not know if he is deliberately trolling by starting a new thread
without quoting the relevant preceding post(s) or just striving to be seen
as too clever by half.

Fredxxx has now used a different address, so I had to add this to my
killfile as well.
--
Dave W

On 07/10/17 15:06, Robin wrote:
On 07/10/2017 14:31, wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 14:01:48 UTC+1, michael adamsÂ* wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

need one say more

I assume he has in mind the way

dv/dt=p/(mv)

begs the question "does this mean you get infinite acceleration when the
vehicle is stationary"?Â* And I assume he is looking for theÂ* answer "no
because the *useful* power delivered is also nil when the vehicle is
stationary".

I do not know if he is deliberately trolling by starting a new thread
without quoting the relevant preceding post(s) or just striving to be
seen as too clever by half.



Or has just discovered Xeno's paradox in reverse.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 07/10/2017 14:02, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news
On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

It was posted in response to this claim of yours.

Which for some reason you chose to snip.

Because you asked a question, presumably posed to DP, to my question.
This would have been some time ago.

snip an old post

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

I find it most disturbing you need to ask twice. Google is your friend.

If you want to make a point then make it, don't ask a stupid question a
child would ask, and more likely know the answer.

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
I find it most disturbing you need to ask twice.

An odd statement given the vast number of times you have reposted someone
else's data about BMWs as a question to me. And point bank refuse to
address any points arising from that.

--
*You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 08/10/2017 13:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
I find it most disturbing you need to ask twice.

An odd statement given the vast number of times you have reposted someone
else's data about BMWs as a question to me. And point bank refuse to
address any points arising from that.

Some basic questions can be answer by young schoolchildren. Classical
mechanics tends to be on a further education or A-level syllabus.

When stupid questions are asked and it is clear the person asking them
has no understanding of the subject there is little point in replying
with an answer. In any case the answer has already been given here.

On 07/10/17 14:02, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news
On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

It was posted in response to this claim of yours.

Which for some reason you chose to snip.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

So I can only ask you again

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?


Depends on the frame of reference.,


michael adams

...









--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

At what temperature?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase
in kinetic energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.


michael adams

....

On 07/10/2017 20:51, michael adams wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.

You seem to have little grasp on the subject of Newtonian / Classical
mechanics.

On Saturday, 7 October 2017 21:23:19 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 07/10/2017 20:51, michael adams wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.

You seem to have little grasp on the subject of Newtonian / Classical
mechanics.

or anything else.

On 07/10/17 21:23, Fredxxx wrote:
On 07/10/2017 20:51, michael adams wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an
increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.

You seem to have little grasp on the subject of Newtonian / Classical
mechanics.
None at all, I suspect.
Worse, he seems unable to distinguish scientific models from reality,

Probably believes in 'climate change' then...


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an
increase in kinetic energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

By getting the engine to increase the speed of the stationary car, stupid.

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.

Stop snorting that dog ****.

On 07-Oct-17 9:26 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an
increase in kinetic energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

By getting the engine to increase the speed of the stationary car, stupid.

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.

Stop snorting that dog ****.

Acceleration/Deceleration results in a change of velocity and hence
change of kinetic energy. Even if the change in speed is measured in the
frame of the earth's rotation / solar system / galaxy / universe it is
still a change in velocity with a resulting change in KE.

To start a car moving KE is transferred from the rotating engine to the
wheels. The increased KE required for acceleration comes from the
chemical energy of the fuel released by combustion. Modern engines with
computer controlled idle can be made to pull off without an initial
increase in rpm but as it uses some the engine's KE there will be a
reduction in rpm that results in the ECU opening the idle air valve to
maintain rpm, which releases more chemical energy required for the
change of KE.

Since the 1911 (over 100 years ago) to start the engine moving chemical
energy is converted into electrical energy and then to KE by rotating
the starter motor. No pushing or towing required unless the chemical
energy store is depleted. Before the starter motor was dependable most
people used a hand crank which wasn't deleted until the 1950's. While
the kick start remained on motorcycles until the late 1980's.

As for torque. A vehicle parked on a slope is held in place by the
torque generated in the brakes. No power required or energy expended.
Even though they are producing torque the brakes don't get warm. They
get warm when they dissipate the cars KE as thermal energy to the air.

What proponents of "torque wins races" can't come to terms with is that
if two otherwise identical cars, running at the same road speed are
geared correctly, a car with 100Nm at 7000rpm will accelerate at exactly
the same rate as one with 200Nm at 3500rpm.

On Sunday, 8 October 2017 10:30:26 UTC+1, Peter Hill wrote:

Since the 1911 (over 100 years ago) to start the engine moving chemical
energy is converted into electrical energy and then to KE by rotating
the starter motor. No pushing or towing required unless the chemical
energy store is depleted. Before the starter motor was dependable most
people used a hand crank which wasn't deleted until the 1950's. While
the kick start remained on motorcycles until the late 1980's.

Ladas still had crankhandle starting in 83


NT

In article ,
Peter Hill wrote:
What proponents of "torque wins races" can't come to terms with is that
if two otherwise identical cars, running at the same road speed are
geared correctly, a car with 100Nm at 7000rpm will accelerate at exactly
the same rate as one with 200Nm at 3500rpm.

Eh?

To get the car with 100Nm at 7000rom to be at the same road speed as one
with 200Nm at 3500 rpm means you have to use a 2:1 reduction gear, which
doubles the torque at the driving wheels. Ignoring the usual red herrings
most seek to introduce.

Just what point do you think that proves?

--
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

michael adams wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an
increase in kinetic energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.


michael adams


I suppose the idea of a self-propelled vehicle must have come as a bit
of a surprise with the first traction engines. Indeed, I believe some
of the more inflexible sections of the 19th century population did
suspect something not quite natural, and a bit magical, about a vehicle
moving without being pulled or pushed. I would have thought we would
be used to it by now, though.

The speed and the kinetic energy are not different things, neither is
prior, they are different descriptions of the same thing.


--

Roger Hayter

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an
increase in kinetic energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.


michael adams


I suppose the idea of a self-propelled vehicle must have come as a bit
of a surprise with the first traction engines. Indeed, I believe some
of the more inflexible sections of the 19th century population did
suspect something not quite natural, and a bit magical, about a vehicle
moving without being pulled or pushed. I would have thought we would
be used to it by now, though.

The speed and the kinetic energy are not different things, neither
is prior, they are different descriptions of the same thing.

Careful, he'll implode between the ears if you don’t watch out.

On second thoughts...

On 07/10/17 23:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
I believe some
of the more inflexible sections of the 19th century population did
suspect something not quite natural, and a bit magical, about a vehicle
moving without being pulled or pushed.

I think we had horses for a millennia. They are self propelled.


--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 07/10/17 23:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
I believe some
of the more inflexible sections of the 19th century population did
suspect something not quite natural, and a bit magical, about a vehicle
moving without being pulled or pushed.

I think we had horses for a millennia. They are self propelled.

As indeed we are ourselves. But I think primitive ideas of
'naturalness' made sense to people and self-propulsion was probably
regarded as an aspect of life rather than mechanics. It is hard to put
oneself into the mind of people who really see animals operating on
totally different physical laws to vehicles, but this may still be the
majority view?



--

Roger Hayter

On 07/10/17 20:51, michael adams wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.

I see that a fundamental understanding of science does not exist in what
passes for your mind...


....a fairly typical remoaner, it would seem.



--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 08/10/2017 03:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/10/17 20:51, michael adams wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an
increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.

I see that a fundamental understanding of science does not exist in what
passes for your mind...


...a fairly typical remoaner, it would seem.

There seems a common theme that Remoaners seem out of touch with the
real physical world.

I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but certainly true of the
more vocal ones in this and a parallel thread.

Not Mr Clutch-Bag hello ducky then.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase
in kinetic energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams

...