lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.59.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 3:42:47 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.31.59 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> >>
> > > Say power is required to produce torque is simply a falsehood. At zero RPM or zero MPH you can produce enormous forces with zero power. Every piece of furniture in this house is exerting force on the floor and yet nothing heats up from the power.
> > >
> > velocity is zero so power is zero
> Yes. If power determines acceleration, then that is also zero. So how does the object ever start to move if the power is zero at zero velocity? To reach any velocity other than zero requires non-zero acceleration which you don't have at zero velocity if power determines acceleration.
>
> Hell, the acceleration equation based on power is not defined at zero velocity since it has a division by zero.
> > > The two are related by a very simple equation as you have shown. I don't know why people can't understand their simple relationship.
> > >
> > > The arguments that power determines acceleration is very clearly debunked by considering the power consumed by initiating movement from zero velocity or rotation. At that initial condition there is zero power, so if power is required to accelerate, then acceleration from zero is impossible.
> > >
> > accelerating from zero to zero is rather pointless, as soon as velocity isn't zero it takes power
> > > This is very clearly demonstrated by the power, torque and acceleration curves of an EV vs. speed. The initial torque is constant from zero to some RPM as is the acceleration. The power begins as a ramp with constant slope. Teslas reach a point where they switch to constant power so the torque then slopes down as does the acceleration.
> > >
> > > Every part of this graph shows it is torque that produces acceleration.
> > but at anything but zero rpm (velocity) exerting that torque takes power
> Irrelevant, you can't get there with zero power which is what you have at zero velocity.
>
> The torque and acceleration curves are identical other than perhaps a scale factor while the power curve is totally different. How can you be so blind to this?

torque, speed(rpm), and power is directly related just like current voltage and power

acceleration * time = velocity, velocity(rpm) * torque = power

On 8/21/2021 3:42 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
> bitrex <user@example.net> wrote in
> news:WscUI.26040$gg4.2761@fx36.iad:
>
>> On 8/21/2021 2:42 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 18:30:39 -0000 (UTC),
>>> DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
>>>> news:fag2ig5q7qu769jch3llaeagh21n7oce16@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 17:49:00 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>> DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As usual, you are wholly clueless about anything other than
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> little scope free, TV free world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Little scope free? I must own 50 oscilloscopes,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Definition number one, you retarded, deliberately stoopid total
>>>> piece of shit.
>>>>
>>>>> classics to 7 GHz
>>>>> digitals. How many do you have?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, Johnny, but mumbling doesn't cut it here. You were
>>>> called out
>>>> as stupid and wrong, because you were. All the sidestep attemps
>>>> and the obfuscation and the topic switch baby bullshit is your
>>>> fucking MO, child. But it fails, just like your remarks, which
>>>> you conveniently snipped failed.
>>>
>>> Do you own an oscilloscope?
>>>
>>> I haven't been without one since I got an Eico Kit when I was
>>> about 10.
>>
>> I only have a Rigol 100 MHz unit at the moment, my digs are pretty
>> small.
>>
>> I had a 60 MHz dual-channel analog Kikusui for many years before
>> that, from about 1982 originally, but it finally stopped powering
>> up except for the pilot LED and the raster illumination bulbs.
>> Maybe an easy fix on the PSU board, it's in the closet if I ever
>> get around to it.
>>
>
> Those damned EL caps... you try soakin' 'em out, you try
> scrubbin' 'em out, and still you get ring around the power supply!
>

Thinking about the number of screws and knobs it looks like I'll have to
take out to even get it broken down to a state where I can work on the
PSU board, and then putting it all back together, has so far made me
feel like doing more enjoyable things with my free time whenever I
consider it

On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 15:27:50 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

>On 8/21/2021 2:42 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 18:30:39 -0000 (UTC),
>> DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
>>
>>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
>>> news:fag2ig5q7qu769jch3llaeagh21n7oce16@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 17:49:00 -0000 (UTC),
>>>> DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As usual, you are wholly clueless about anything other than your
>>>>> little scope free, TV free world.
>>>>
>>>> Little scope free? I must own 50 oscilloscopes,
>>>
>>>
>>> Definition number one, you retarded, deliberately stoopid total piece
>>> of shit.
>>>
>>>> classics to 7 GHz
>>>> digitals. How many do you have?
>>>
>>> Sorry, Johnny, but mumbling doesn't cut it here. You were called out
>>> as stupid and wrong, because you were. All the sidestep attemps and
>>> the obfuscation and the topic switch baby bullshit is your fucking MO,
>>> child. But it fails, just like your remarks, which you conveniently
>>> snipped failed.
>>
>> Do you own an oscilloscope?
>>
>> I haven't been without one since I got an Eico Kit when I was about
>> 10.
>
>I only have a Rigol 100 MHz unit at the moment, my digs are pretty small.
>
>I had a 60 MHz dual-channel analog Kikusui for many years before that,
>from about 1982 originally, but it finally stopped powering up except
>for the pilot LED and the raster illumination bulbs. Maybe an easy fix
>on the PSU board, it's in the closet if I ever get around to it.

Our Kiks tended to arc over in the HV multiplier. To revive them, I'd
replace the HV diodes and conformally coat that section.

Mediocre scopes.

--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:22:45 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.59.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 3:42:47 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.31.59 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del....@gmail.com:
> > >>
> > > > Say power is required to produce torque is simply a falsehood. At zero RPM or zero MPH you can produce enormous forces with zero power. Every piece of furniture in this house is exerting force on the floor and yet nothing heats up from the power.
> > > >
> > > velocity is zero so power is zero
> > Yes. If power determines acceleration, then that is also zero. So how does the object ever start to move if the power is zero at zero velocity? To reach any velocity other than zero requires non-zero acceleration which you don't have at zero velocity if power determines acceleration.
> >
> > Hell, the acceleration equation based on power is not defined at zero velocity since it has a division by zero.
> > > > The two are related by a very simple equation as you have shown. I don't know why people can't understand their simple relationship.
> > > >
> > > > The arguments that power determines acceleration is very clearly debunked by considering the power consumed by initiating movement from zero velocity or rotation. At that initial condition there is zero power, so if power is required to accelerate, then acceleration from zero is impossible.
> > > >
> > > accelerating from zero to zero is rather pointless, as soon as velocity isn't zero it takes power
> > > > This is very clearly demonstrated by the power, torque and acceleration curves of an EV vs. speed. The initial torque is constant from zero to some RPM as is the acceleration. The power begins as a ramp with constant slope. Teslas reach a point where they switch to constant power so the torque then slopes down as does the acceleration.
> > > >
> > > > Every part of this graph shows it is torque that produces acceleration.
> > > but at anything but zero rpm (velocity) exerting that torque takes power
> > Irrelevant, you can't get there with zero power which is what you have at zero velocity.
> >
> > The torque and acceleration curves are identical other than perhaps a scale factor while the power curve is totally different. How can you be so blind to this?
> torque, speed(rpm), and power is directly related just like current voltage and power
>
> acceleration * time = velocity, velocity(rpm) * torque = power

You keep writing these same two equations. What is the one equation for acceleration as a function of power?

--

Rick C.

---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 8/21/2021 4:29 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 15:27:50 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/21/2021 2:42 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 18:30:39 -0000 (UTC),
>>> DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
>>>> news:fag2ig5q7qu769jch3llaeagh21n7oce16@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 17:49:00 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>> DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As usual, you are wholly clueless about anything other than your
>>>>>> little scope free, TV free world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Little scope free? I must own 50 oscilloscopes,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Definition number one, you retarded, deliberately stoopid total piece
>>>> of shit.
>>>>
>>>>> classics to 7 GHz
>>>>> digitals. How many do you have?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, Johnny, but mumbling doesn't cut it here. You were called out
>>>> as stupid and wrong, because you were. All the sidestep attemps and
>>>> the obfuscation and the topic switch baby bullshit is your fucking MO,
>>>> child. But it fails, just like your remarks, which you conveniently
>>>> snipped failed.
>>>
>>> Do you own an oscilloscope?
>>>
>>> I haven't been without one since I got an Eico Kit when I was about
>>> 10.
>>
>> I only have a Rigol 100 MHz unit at the moment, my digs are pretty small.
>>
>> I had a 60 MHz dual-channel analog Kikusui for many years before that,
>>from about 1982 originally, but it finally stopped powering up except
>> for the pilot LED and the raster illumination bulbs. Maybe an easy fix
>> on the PSU board, it's in the closet if I ever get around to it.
>
> Our Kiks tended to arc over in the HV multiplier. To revive them, I'd
> replace the HV diodes and conformally coat that section.
>
> Mediocre scopes.

On the bright side I don't think there's anything that's irreplaceable
in there 40 years later, aside from the transformer and CRT probably.
IIRC the vertical front end amp is built from a CA3046...

lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 22.36.51 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:22:45 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.59.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 3:42:47 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.31.59 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del....@gmail.com:
> > > >>
> > > > > Say power is required to produce torque is simply a falsehood. At zero RPM or zero MPH you can produce enormous forces with zero power. Every piece of furniture in this house is exerting force on the floor and yet nothing heats up from the power.
> > > > >
> > > > velocity is zero so power is zero
> > > Yes. If power determines acceleration, then that is also zero. So how does the object ever start to move if the power is zero at zero velocity? To reach any velocity other than zero requires non-zero acceleration which you don't have at zero velocity if power determines acceleration.
> > >
> > > Hell, the acceleration equation based on power is not defined at zero velocity since it has a division by zero.
> > > > > The two are related by a very simple equation as you have shown. I don't know why people can't understand their simple relationship.
> > > > >
> > > > > The arguments that power determines acceleration is very clearly debunked by considering the power consumed by initiating movement from zero velocity or rotation. At that initial condition there is zero power, so if power is required to accelerate, then acceleration from zero is impossible..
> > > > >
> > > > accelerating from zero to zero is rather pointless, as soon as velocity isn't zero it takes power
> > > > > This is very clearly demonstrated by the power, torque and acceleration curves of an EV vs. speed. The initial torque is constant from zero to some RPM as is the acceleration. The power begins as a ramp with constant slope. Teslas reach a point where they switch to constant power so the torque then slopes down as does the acceleration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Every part of this graph shows it is torque that produces acceleration.
> > > > but at anything but zero rpm (velocity) exerting that torque takes power
> > > Irrelevant, you can't get there with zero power which is what you have at zero velocity.
> > >
> > > The torque and acceleration curves are identical other than perhaps a scale factor while the power curve is totally different. How can you be so blind to this?
> > torque, speed(rpm), and power is directly related just like current voltage and power
> >
> > acceleration * time = velocity, velocity(rpm) * torque = power
> You keep writing these same two equations. What is the one equation for acceleration as a function of power?
>

a = P/(m*v) for v>0

On 8/21/2021 4:29 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 15:27:50 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/21/2021 2:42 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 18:30:39 -0000 (UTC),
>>> DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
>>>> news:fag2ig5q7qu769jch3llaeagh21n7oce16@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 17:49:00 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>> DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As usual, you are wholly clueless about anything other than your
>>>>>> little scope free, TV free world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Little scope free? I must own 50 oscilloscopes,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Definition number one, you retarded, deliberately stoopid total piece
>>>> of shit.
>>>>
>>>>> classics to 7 GHz
>>>>> digitals. How many do you have?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, Johnny, but mumbling doesn't cut it here. You were called out
>>>> as stupid and wrong, because you were. All the sidestep attemps and
>>>> the obfuscation and the topic switch baby bullshit is your fucking MO,
>>>> child. But it fails, just like your remarks, which you conveniently
>>>> snipped failed.
>>>
>>> Do you own an oscilloscope?
>>>
>>> I haven't been without one since I got an Eico Kit when I was about
>>> 10.
>>
>> I only have a Rigol 100 MHz unit at the moment, my digs are pretty small.
>>
>> I had a 60 MHz dual-channel analog Kikusui for many years before that,
>>from about 1982 originally, but it finally stopped powering up except
>> for the pilot LED and the raster illumination bulbs. Maybe an easy fix
>> on the PSU board, it's in the closet if I ever get around to it.
>
> Our Kiks tended to arc over in the HV multiplier. To revive them, I'd
> replace the HV diodes and conformally coat that section.
>
> Mediocre scopes.
>

I think in these if either of the +/-12 goes down the HV goes down too,
as they close an opamp feedback loop around an LC transistor oscillator
to regulate the CRT anode supply

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:48:10 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 22.36.51 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:22:45 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.59.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del....@gmail.com:
> > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 3:42:47 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.31.59 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > >>
> > > > > > Say power is required to produce torque is simply a falsehood. At zero RPM or zero MPH you can produce enormous forces with zero power. Every piece of furniture in this house is exerting force on the floor and yet nothing heats up from the power.
> > > > > >
> > > > > velocity is zero so power is zero
> > > > Yes. If power determines acceleration, then that is also zero. So how does the object ever start to move if the power is zero at zero velocity? To reach any velocity other than zero requires non-zero acceleration which you don't have at zero velocity if power determines acceleration.
> > > >
> > > > Hell, the acceleration equation based on power is not defined at zero velocity since it has a division by zero.
> > > > > > The two are related by a very simple equation as you have shown.. I don't know why people can't understand their simple relationship.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The arguments that power determines acceleration is very clearly debunked by considering the power consumed by initiating movement from zero velocity or rotation. At that initial condition there is zero power, so if power is required to accelerate, then acceleration from zero is impossible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > accelerating from zero to zero is rather pointless, as soon as velocity isn't zero it takes power
> > > > > > This is very clearly demonstrated by the power, torque and acceleration curves of an EV vs. speed. The initial torque is constant from zero to some RPM as is the acceleration. The power begins as a ramp with constant slope. Teslas reach a point where they switch to constant power so the torque then slopes down as does the acceleration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Every part of this graph shows it is torque that produces acceleration.
> > > > > but at anything but zero rpm (velocity) exerting that torque takes power
> > > > Irrelevant, you can't get there with zero power which is what you have at zero velocity.
> > > >
> > > > The torque and acceleration curves are identical other than perhaps a scale factor while the power curve is totally different. How can you be so blind to this?
> > > torque, speed(rpm), and power is directly related just like current voltage and power
> > >
> > > acceleration * time = velocity, velocity(rpm) * torque = power
> > You keep writing these same two equations. What is the one equation for acceleration as a function of power?
> >
> a = P/(m*v) for v>0

Ok, so what is the definition for v = 0?

--

Rick C.

---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 23.07.19 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:48:10 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 22.36.51 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:22:45 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.59.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del....@gmail.com:
> > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 3:42:47 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.31.59 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm..del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > Say power is required to produce torque is simply a falsehood.. At zero RPM or zero MPH you can produce enormous forces with zero power. Every piece of furniture in this house is exerting force on the floor and yet nothing heats up from the power.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > velocity is zero so power is zero
> > > > > Yes. If power determines acceleration, then that is also zero. So how does the object ever start to move if the power is zero at zero velocity? To reach any velocity other than zero requires non-zero acceleration which you don't have at zero velocity if power determines acceleration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hell, the acceleration equation based on power is not defined at zero velocity since it has a division by zero.
> > > > > > > The two are related by a very simple equation as you have shown. I don't know why people can't understand their simple relationship.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The arguments that power determines acceleration is very clearly debunked by considering the power consumed by initiating movement from zero velocity or rotation. At that initial condition there is zero power, so if power is required to accelerate, then acceleration from zero is impossible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > accelerating from zero to zero is rather pointless, as soon as velocity isn't zero it takes power
> > > > > > > This is very clearly demonstrated by the power, torque and acceleration curves of an EV vs. speed. The initial torque is constant from zero to some RPM as is the acceleration. The power begins as a ramp with constant slope. Teslas reach a point where they switch to constant power so the torque then slopes down as does the acceleration.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Every part of this graph shows it is torque that produces acceleration.
> > > > > > but at anything but zero rpm (velocity) exerting that torque takes power
> > > > > Irrelevant, you can't get there with zero power which is what you have at zero velocity.
> > > > >
> > > > > The torque and acceleration curves are identical other than perhaps a scale factor while the power curve is totally different. How can you be so blind to this?
> > > > torque, speed(rpm), and power is directly related just like current voltage and power
> > > >
> > > > acceleration * time = velocity, velocity(rpm) * torque = power
> > > You keep writing these same two equations. What is the one equation for acceleration as a function of power?
> > >
> > a = P/(m*v) for v>0
> Ok, so what is the definition for v = 0?

F/m and F is depending on engine torque and gearing and the gearing related to how much power you
have because otherwise you run out of rpm before you reach any speed

and if you are accelerating v is not zero

On 8/20/2021 7:24 PM, Rick C wrote:
> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 4:36:30 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 21:50:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>> <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-08-20 20:24, Dean Hoffman wrote:
>>>> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 5:15:12 AM UTC-5, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
>>>>> Unbelievably fast...
>>>>>
>>>>> And so practically silent doing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUB1z5wr5p8
>>>>
>>>> That takes a lot of the fun out of it. Revving a V8 at a stop light with just enough muffler
>>>> to be legal is a good part of the fun.
>>>
>>> I passionately hate noisy vehicles. I'd want to shoot you, but I
>>> won't, because contrary to you, I'm civilized and try to minimize
>>> the annoyance I cause to others.
>>>
>>> In France, there is talk of introducing automated noise traps,
>>> like speed traps, but for noise. I'm very much in favour.
>>>
>>> Jeroen Belleman
>> One un-muffled motorcycle can wake up hundreds of people.
>
> So we need to limit people's rights to make noise, but we certainly should not restrict anyone's right to infect others.
>

You can tell motorcyclists to please be more quiet in Providence RI if
you wanna get a cinder block put thru your driver's window/face, or shot

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 7:19:30 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 23.07.19 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:48:10 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 22.36.51 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del....@gmail.com:
> > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:22:45 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.59.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 3:42:47 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.31.59 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > Say power is required to produce torque is simply a falsehood. At zero RPM or zero MPH you can produce enormous forces with zero power.. Every piece of furniture in this house is exerting force on the floor and yet nothing heats up from the power.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > velocity is zero so power is zero
> > > > > > Yes. If power determines acceleration, then that is also zero. So how does the object ever start to move if the power is zero at zero velocity? To reach any velocity other than zero requires non-zero acceleration which you don't have at zero velocity if power determines acceleration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hell, the acceleration equation based on power is not defined at zero velocity since it has a division by zero.
> > > > > > > > The two are related by a very simple equation as you have shown. I don't know why people can't understand their simple relationship.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The arguments that power determines acceleration is very clearly debunked by considering the power consumed by initiating movement from zero velocity or rotation. At that initial condition there is zero power, so if power is required to accelerate, then acceleration from zero is impossible.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > accelerating from zero to zero is rather pointless, as soon as velocity isn't zero it takes power
> > > > > > > > This is very clearly demonstrated by the power, torque and acceleration curves of an EV vs. speed. The initial torque is constant from zero to some RPM as is the acceleration. The power begins as a ramp with constant slope. Teslas reach a point where they switch to constant power so the torque then slopes down as does the acceleration.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Every part of this graph shows it is torque that produces acceleration.
> > > > > > > but at anything but zero rpm (velocity) exerting that torque takes power
> > > > > > Irrelevant, you can't get there with zero power which is what you have at zero velocity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The torque and acceleration curves are identical other than perhaps a scale factor while the power curve is totally different. How can you be so blind to this?
> > > > > torque, speed(rpm), and power is directly related just like current voltage and power
> > > > >
> > > > > acceleration * time = velocity, velocity(rpm) * torque = power
> > > > You keep writing these same two equations. What is the one equation for acceleration as a function of power?
> > > >
> > > a = P/(m*v) for v>0
> > Ok, so what is the definition for v = 0?
> F/m and F is depending on engine torque and gearing and the gearing related to how much power you
> have because otherwise you run out of rpm before you reach any speed
>
> and if you are accelerating v is not zero

That is exactly the point. When v is initially zero the power is also zero.. So either acceleration does not depend on power or you can't accelerate from a dead stop. Pick one. It is simple, rational logic. It is clear and unambiguous. Either accept it or explain what I am doing wrong.

At this point I think you see the fallacy and we both know I'm not wrong.

--

Rick C.

--+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

søndag den 22. august 2021 kl. 01.52.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 7:19:30 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 23.07.19 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:48:10 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 22.36.51 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del....@gmail.com:
> > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:22:45 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.59.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm..del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 3:42:47 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.31.59 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > Say power is required to produce torque is simply a falsehood. At zero RPM or zero MPH you can produce enormous forces with zero power. Every piece of furniture in this house is exerting force on the floor and yet nothing heats up from the power.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > velocity is zero so power is zero
> > > > > > > Yes. If power determines acceleration, then that is also zero.. So how does the object ever start to move if the power is zero at zero velocity? To reach any velocity other than zero requires non-zero acceleration which you don't have at zero velocity if power determines acceleration.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hell, the acceleration equation based on power is not defined at zero velocity since it has a division by zero.
> > > > > > > > > The two are related by a very simple equation as you have shown. I don't know why people can't understand their simple relationship.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The arguments that power determines acceleration is very clearly debunked by considering the power consumed by initiating movement from zero velocity or rotation. At that initial condition there is zero power, so if power is required to accelerate, then acceleration from zero is impossible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > accelerating from zero to zero is rather pointless, as soon as velocity isn't zero it takes power
> > > > > > > > > This is very clearly demonstrated by the power, torque and acceleration curves of an EV vs. speed. The initial torque is constant from zero to some RPM as is the acceleration. The power begins as a ramp with constant slope. Teslas reach a point where they switch to constant power so the torque then slopes down as does the acceleration.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Every part of this graph shows it is torque that produces acceleration.
> > > > > > > > but at anything but zero rpm (velocity) exerting that torque takes power
> > > > > > > Irrelevant, you can't get there with zero power which is what you have at zero velocity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The torque and acceleration curves are identical other than perhaps a scale factor while the power curve is totally different. How can you be so blind to this?
> > > > > > torque, speed(rpm), and power is directly related just like current voltage and power
> > > > > >
> > > > > > acceleration * time = velocity, velocity(rpm) * torque = power
> > > > > You keep writing these same two equations. What is the one equation for acceleration as a function of power?
> > > > >
> > > > a = P/(m*v) for v>0
> > > Ok, so what is the definition for v = 0?
> > F/m and F is depending on engine torque and gearing and the gearing related to how much power you
> > have because otherwise you run out of rpm before you reach any speed
> >
> > and if you are accelerating v is not zero
> That is exactly the point. When v is initially zero the power is also zero. So either acceleration does not depend on power or you can't accelerate from a dead stop. Pick one. It is simple, rational logic. It is clear and unambiguous. Either accept it or explain what I am doing wrong.
>
> At this point I think you see the fallacy and we both know I'm not wrong.

talking past each other,

acceleration it determined by the torque at the wheels which is determined by the torque of the motor and the gearing
but you can't just pick a very low gearing to get more torque at the wheels because then you run out of rpm before you
reach much speed, the combination of torque and rpm is power

in the end accelerating a mass from 0 to X requires adding kinetic energy, the more power you have the faster you can add that energy
assuming you can match you power source to the sink, which is what the gearing is for

gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

===========================

> > and if you are accelerating v is not zero
>
> That is exactly the point. When v is initially zero the power is also zero.

** A pedantic irrelevance - the ONLY thing this raving NUTTER has got.

So either acceleration does not depend on power or you can't accelerate from a dead stop.

** LISTEN fuckhead.

*Instantaneous acceleration* is purely a math concept - it has no reality.

Allow even the tiniest amount of time to pass and there is energy transfer * requiring power *.

> Pick one. It is simple, rational logic. It is clear and unambiguous. Either accept it or explain what I am doing wrong.

** Done that already, you fucking MORON.

> At this point I think you see the fallacy and we both know I'm not wrong.

** This FUCKING ASSHOLE is completely delusional !!!!
Votes Dem & thinks Joe is a genius and great world leader.
Ought to be committed to a secure mental institution for the safety of the public.

....... Phil

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 8:16:40 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> søndag den 22. august 2021 kl. 01.52.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 7:19:30 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 23.07.19 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del....@gmail.com:
> > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:48:10 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 22.36.51 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:22:45 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.59.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 3:42:47 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.31.59 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > Say power is required to produce torque is simply a falsehood. At zero RPM or zero MPH you can produce enormous forces with zero power. Every piece of furniture in this house is exerting force on the floor and yet nothing heats up from the power.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > velocity is zero so power is zero
> > > > > > > > Yes. If power determines acceleration, then that is also zero. So how does the object ever start to move if the power is zero at zero velocity? To reach any velocity other than zero requires non-zero acceleration which you don't have at zero velocity if power determines acceleration.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hell, the acceleration equation based on power is not defined at zero velocity since it has a division by zero.
> > > > > > > > > > The two are related by a very simple equation as you have shown. I don't know why people can't understand their simple relationship.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The arguments that power determines acceleration is very clearly debunked by considering the power consumed by initiating movement from zero velocity or rotation. At that initial condition there is zero power, so if power is required to accelerate, then acceleration from zero is impossible.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > accelerating from zero to zero is rather pointless, as soon as velocity isn't zero it takes power
> > > > > > > > > > This is very clearly demonstrated by the power, torque and acceleration curves of an EV vs. speed. The initial torque is constant from zero to some RPM as is the acceleration. The power begins as a ramp with constant slope. Teslas reach a point where they switch to constant power so the torque then slopes down as does the acceleration.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Every part of this graph shows it is torque that produces acceleration.
> > > > > > > > > but at anything but zero rpm (velocity) exerting that torque takes power
> > > > > > > > Irrelevant, you can't get there with zero power which is what you have at zero velocity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The torque and acceleration curves are identical other than perhaps a scale factor while the power curve is totally different. How can you be so blind to this?
> > > > > > > torque, speed(rpm), and power is directly related just like current voltage and power
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > acceleration * time = velocity, velocity(rpm) * torque = power
> > > > > > You keep writing these same two equations. What is the one equation for acceleration as a function of power?
> > > > > >
> > > > > a = P/(m*v) for v>0
> > > > Ok, so what is the definition for v = 0?
> > > F/m and F is depending on engine torque and gearing and the gearing related to how much power you
> > > have because otherwise you run out of rpm before you reach any speed
> > >
> > > and if you are accelerating v is not zero
> > That is exactly the point. When v is initially zero the power is also zero. So either acceleration does not depend on power or you can't accelerate from a dead stop. Pick one. It is simple, rational logic. It is clear and unambiguous. Either accept it or explain what I am doing wrong.
> >
> > At this point I think you see the fallacy and we both know I'm not wrong.
> talking past each other,
>
> acceleration it determined by the torque at the wheels which is determined by the torque of the motor and the gearing
> but you can't just pick a very low gearing to get more torque at the wheels because then you run out of rpm before you
> reach much speed, the combination of torque and rpm is power

No, at this point I think you understand that it is torque that drives acceleration and we are not talking past one another. Anything else you add is just fluff to make yourself feel better about it. I never said power is not involved. Power is the direct result of applying a force over a distance in some time interval. That is the RESULT of the force and acceleration, not the cause of it. The "arguments" made about power being required to have acceleration is misguided as I have demonstrated by the lack of power when speed is zero. Power is a separate measurement of a directly related parameter.

> in the end accelerating a mass from 0 to X requires adding kinetic energy, the more power you have the faster you can add that energy
> assuming you can match you power source to the sink, which is what the gearing is for

Sure, applying a force over a distance is doing work. The rate of work is power. So by definition accelerating a mass involves power. Power doesn't define the acceleration. Acceleration defines the power. Force defines the acceleration. Talk about matching the power source to the sink is the sort of stuff that was important in selecting gear ratios and shift points required with internal combustion engines. It has little to do with the fundamentals of acceleration and force.

So are we done now? The pertinent equation is a = f / m, right?

--

Rick C.

--++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 9:20:03 PM UTC-4, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ==========================> > > and if you are accelerating v is not zero
> >
> > That is exactly the point. When v is initially zero the power is also zero.
> ** A pedantic irrelevance - the ONLY thing this raving NUTTER has got.
> So either acceleration does not depend on power or you can't accelerate from a dead stop.
> ** LISTEN fuckhead.
>
> *Instantaneous acceleration* is purely a math concept - it has no reality..

LOL!!! Good thing Pill never tried to learn calculus. He would not have gotten far with that attitude. I guess Newton was just wrong about... well pretty much everything. So everyone who learned about calculus, just remember it's not related to the real world. It's just a math concept with no reality.

> Allow even the tiniest amount of time to pass and there is energy transfer * requiring power *.

And at the point in time when this is starting the velocity is zero and the power is zero. So how does it get from zero power to non-zero power??? With zero velocity there is no power, so no acceleration. How do you get to non-zero velocity and non-zero power if acceleration is determined by power?

If you could actually understand anything I'm saying your mind would explode. But you don't understand and likely you will never understand because your world can't conceive of learning something new when you thought you already understood it.

> > Pick one. It is simple, rational logic. It is clear and unambiguous. Either accept it or explain what I am doing wrong.
> ** Done that already, you fucking MORON.
> > At this point I think you see the fallacy and we both know I'm not wrong.
> ** This FUCKING ASSHOLE is completely delusional !!!!

This is the sort of argument Pill falls back on when he has no idea of what is going on.

It is clear that you have acceleration when power is zero, so clearly power does not determine acceleration. But Pill either can't understand the significance of math or just refuses to believe he is so clearly wrong about something he so deeply believed he understood.

What a maroon!

--

Rick C.

-+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

søndag den 22. august 2021 kl. 03.26.09 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 8:16:40 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > søndag den 22. august 2021 kl. 01.52.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 7:19:30 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 23.07.19 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del....@gmail.com:
> > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:48:10 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 22.36.51 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm..del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:22:45 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.59.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 3:42:47 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.31.59 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > Say power is required to produce torque is simply a falsehood. At zero RPM or zero MPH you can produce enormous forces with zero power. Every piece of furniture in this house is exerting force on the floor and yet nothing heats up from the power.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > velocity is zero so power is zero
> > > > > > > > > Yes. If power determines acceleration, then that is also zero. So how does the object ever start to move if the power is zero at zero velocity? To reach any velocity other than zero requires non-zero acceleration which you don't have at zero velocity if power determines acceleration.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hell, the acceleration equation based on power is not defined at zero velocity since it has a division by zero.
> > > > > > > > > > > The two are related by a very simple equation as you have shown. I don't know why people can't understand their simple relationship.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The arguments that power determines acceleration is very clearly debunked by considering the power consumed by initiating movement from zero velocity or rotation. At that initial condition there is zero power, so if power is required to accelerate, then acceleration from zero is impossible.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > accelerating from zero to zero is rather pointless, as soon as velocity isn't zero it takes power
> > > > > > > > > > > This is very clearly demonstrated by the power, torque and acceleration curves of an EV vs. speed. The initial torque is constant from zero to some RPM as is the acceleration. The power begins as a ramp with constant slope. Teslas reach a point where they switch to constant power so the torque then slopes down as does the acceleration.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Every part of this graph shows it is torque that produces acceleration.
> > > > > > > > > > but at anything but zero rpm (velocity) exerting that torque takes power
> > > > > > > > > Irrelevant, you can't get there with zero power which is what you have at zero velocity.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The torque and acceleration curves are identical other than perhaps a scale factor while the power curve is totally different. How can you be so blind to this?
> > > > > > > > torque, speed(rpm), and power is directly related just like current voltage and power
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > acceleration * time = velocity, velocity(rpm) * torque = power
> > > > > > > You keep writing these same two equations. What is the one equation for acceleration as a function of power?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > a = P/(m*v) for v>0
> > > > > Ok, so what is the definition for v = 0?
> > > > F/m and F is depending on engine torque and gearing and the gearing related to how much power you
> > > > have because otherwise you run out of rpm before you reach any speed
> > > >
> > > > and if you are accelerating v is not zero
> > > That is exactly the point. When v is initially zero the power is also zero. So either acceleration does not depend on power or you can't accelerate from a dead stop. Pick one. It is simple, rational logic. It is clear and unambiguous. Either accept it or explain what I am doing wrong.
> > >
> > > At this point I think you see the fallacy and we both know I'm not wrong.
> > talking past each other,
> >
> > acceleration it determined by the torque at the wheels which is determined by the torque of the motor and the gearing
> > but you can't just pick a very low gearing to get more torque at the wheels because then you run out of rpm before you
> > reach much speed, the combination of torque and rpm is power
> No, at this point I think you understand that it is torque that drives acceleration and we are not talking past one another. Anything else you add is just fluff to make yourself feel better about it. I never said power is not involved. Power is the direct result of applying a force over a distance in some time interval. That is the RESULT of the force and acceleration, not the cause of it. The "arguments" made about power being required to have acceleration is misguided as I have demonstrated by the lack of power when speed is zero. Power is a separate measurement of a directly related parameter.
> > in the end accelerating a mass from 0 to X requires adding kinetic energy, the more power you have the faster you can add that energy
> > assuming you can match you power source to the sink, which is what the gearing is for
> Sure, applying a force over a distance is doing work. The rate of work is power. So by definition accelerating a mass involves power.

so if you have more power you can accelerate faster

>Power doesn't define the acceleration. Acceleration defines the power. Force defines the acceleration. Talk about matching the power source to the sink is the sort of stuff that was important in selecting gear ratios and shift points required with internal combustion engines. It has little to do with the fundamentals of acceleration and force.
>
> So are we done now? The pertinent equation is a = f / m, right?

sure, if time stands still

gnuarm.delusional...@gmail.com wrote:

===============================
> >
> > *Instantaneous acceleration* is purely a math concept - it has no reality.

> LOL!!! Good thing Pill never tried to learn calculus.

** Massive irrlevence and LIE.

(I was the best math & science student in my high school ) .

> > Allow even the tiniest amount of time to pass and there is energy transfer * requiring power *.

> And at the point in time when this is starting the velocity is zero and the power is zero. So how does it get from zero power to non-zero power??? With zero velocity there is no power, so no acceleration. How do you get to non-zero velocity and non-zero power if acceleration is determined by power?

** Desperate * FOOLS * ask meaningless questions when they have no case.

> If you could actually understand anything I'm saying your mind would explode.

** If I really did *understand* your thinking - I would kill myself.

> > ** This FUCKING ASSHOLE is completely delusional !!!!

> This is the sort of argument

** Just citing a fact very obvious fact CLEAR to everyone here.

...... Phil

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 9:44:16 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> søndag den 22. august 2021 kl. 03.26.09 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 8:16:40 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > søndag den 22. august 2021 kl. 01.52.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del....@gmail.com:
> > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 7:19:30 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 23.07.19 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:48:10 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 22.36.51 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:22:45 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.59.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 3:42:47 PM UTC-4, lang....@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.31.59 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Say power is required to produce torque is simply a falsehood. At zero RPM or zero MPH you can produce enormous forces with zero power. Every piece of furniture in this house is exerting force on the floor and yet nothing heats up from the power.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > velocity is zero so power is zero
> > > > > > > > > > Yes. If power determines acceleration, then that is also zero. So how does the object ever start to move if the power is zero at zero velocity? To reach any velocity other than zero requires non-zero acceleration which you don't have at zero velocity if power determines acceleration.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hell, the acceleration equation based on power is not defined at zero velocity since it has a division by zero.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The two are related by a very simple equation as you have shown. I don't know why people can't understand their simple relationship.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The arguments that power determines acceleration is very clearly debunked by considering the power consumed by initiating movement from zero velocity or rotation. At that initial condition there is zero power, so if power is required to accelerate, then acceleration from zero is impossible.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > accelerating from zero to zero is rather pointless, as soon as velocity isn't zero it takes power
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is very clearly demonstrated by the power, torque and acceleration curves of an EV vs. speed. The initial torque is constant from zero to some RPM as is the acceleration. The power begins as a ramp with constant slope. Teslas reach a point where they switch to constant power so the torque then slopes down as does the acceleration.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Every part of this graph shows it is torque that produces acceleration.
> > > > > > > > > > > but at anything but zero rpm (velocity) exerting that torque takes power
> > > > > > > > > > Irrelevant, you can't get there with zero power which is what you have at zero velocity.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The torque and acceleration curves are identical other than perhaps a scale factor while the power curve is totally different. How can you be so blind to this?
> > > > > > > > > torque, speed(rpm), and power is directly related just like current voltage and power
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > acceleration * time = velocity, velocity(rpm) * torque = power
> > > > > > > > You keep writing these same two equations. What is the one equation for acceleration as a function of power?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > a = P/(m*v) for v>0
> > > > > > Ok, so what is the definition for v = 0?
> > > > > F/m and F is depending on engine torque and gearing and the gearing related to how much power you
> > > > > have because otherwise you run out of rpm before you reach any speed
> > > > >
> > > > > and if you are accelerating v is not zero
> > > > That is exactly the point. When v is initially zero the power is also zero. So either acceleration does not depend on power or you can't accelerate from a dead stop. Pick one. It is simple, rational logic. It is clear and unambiguous. Either accept it or explain what I am doing wrong.
> > > >
> > > > At this point I think you see the fallacy and we both know I'm not wrong.
> > > talking past each other,
> > >
> > > acceleration it determined by the torque at the wheels which is determined by the torque of the motor and the gearing
> > > but you can't just pick a very low gearing to get more torque at the wheels because then you run out of rpm before you
> > > reach much speed, the combination of torque and rpm is power
> > No, at this point I think you understand that it is torque that drives acceleration and we are not talking past one another. Anything else you add is just fluff to make yourself feel better about it. I never said power is not involved. Power is the direct result of applying a force over a distance in some time interval. That is the RESULT of the force and acceleration, not the cause of it. The "arguments" made about power being required to have acceleration is misguided as I have demonstrated by the lack of power when speed is zero. Power is a separate measurement of a directly related parameter.
> > > in the end accelerating a mass from 0 to X requires adding kinetic energy, the more power you have the faster you can add that energy
> > > assuming you can match you power source to the sink, which is what the gearing is for
> > Sure, applying a force over a distance is doing work. The rate of work is power. So by definition accelerating a mass involves power.
> so if you have more power you can accelerate faster

You mean if you have more force you can accelerate faster. The higher power is the result of applying that force.

I don't get why you continue to debate this. I've clearly shown you that power causing acceleration is a fallacy with the example starting at velocity of zero which means power is zero. Are you not able to understand simple math?

> >Power doesn't define the acceleration. Acceleration defines the power. Force defines the acceleration. Talk about matching the power source to the sink is the sort of stuff that was important in selecting gear ratios and shift points required with internal combustion engines. It has little to do with the fundamentals of acceleration and force.
> >
> > So are we done now? The pertinent equation is a = f / m, right?
> sure, if time stands still

Lol! Ok, I'll put you in the camp with Pill, unable to learn calculus or even simpler algebra. What is the power at velocity zero? ZERO! What is the acceleration? a = f / m. It's not hard. You just have to stop believing in misguided misconceptions about time standing still. If power determines acceleration you can have all the time in the world, but the velocity will remain zero because the power remains at zero. So clearly not time standing still, just all movement stands still since at zero velocity power is zero.

I think at this point you are just posting to get a rise out of me. Pill has his limitations, but you seem more intelligent than that. Do you also believe instantaneous acceleration is a math concept that has no basis in reality?

So are we done or do you want to continue to troll bait me?

--

Rick C.

-+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> gnuarm.delusional...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ===============================> > >
> > > *Instantaneous acceleration* is purely a math concept - it has no reality.
>
> > LOL!!! Good thing Pill never tried to learn calculus.
> ** Massive irrlevence and LIE.
>
> (I was the best math & science student in my high school ) .

I don't see you saying you learned calculus. If you had you must understand that there is such a thing as instantaneous force, instantaneous power, instantaneous velocity and instantaneous acceleration... IN THE REAL WORLD.

> > > Allow even the tiniest amount of time to pass and there is energy transfer * requiring power *.
>
> > And at the point in time when this is starting the velocity is zero and the power is zero. So how does it get from zero power to non-zero power??? With zero velocity there is no power, so no acceleration. How do you get to non-zero velocity and non-zero power if acceleration is determined by power?
> ** Desperate * FOOLS * ask meaningless questions when they have no case.
> > If you could actually understand anything I'm saying your mind would explode.
> ** If I really did *understand* your thinking - I would kill myself.
> > > ** This FUCKING ASSHOLE is completely delusional !!!!
>
> > This is the sort of argument
> ** Just citing a fact very obvious fact CLEAR to everyone here.

Yes, this is how Pill argues when he doesn't understand the science, ad hominem. That's ok. Pill is never going to understand a great many things. This is just another one of them. No point in even discussing with him further. His steel door to his mind has slammed shut.

--

Rick C.

-++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
==========================
>>
> > > > *Instantaneous acceleration* is purely a math concept - it has no reality.
> >
> > > LOL!!! Good thing Pill never tried to learn calculus.
> > ** Massive irrlevence and LIE.
> >
> > (I was the best math & science student in my high school ) .

> I don't see you saying you learned calculus.

** Course I did - I went on to do Honours level EE at Sydney University.

Honours level Pure Math and Applied Math too plus Honours level Physics.
Small lectures, separate from the rest and done the old fashioned way.
No recorded TV lectures or printed notes like the teaching and med students got.

> If you had you must understand that there is such a thing as instantaneous force,

** An Applied Math concept.

*Instantaneous acceleration* is purely a math concept - it has no reality.
Allow even the tiniest amount of time to pass and there is energy transfer * requiring power *.

> > > And at the point in time when this is starting the velocity is zero and the power is zero.
> So how does it get from zero power to non-zero power???
> With zero velocity there is no power, so no acceleration.
> How do you get to non-zero velocity and non-zero power if acceleration is determined by power?

** Desperate * FOOLS * ask *meaningless questions* when they have no case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, this is how Pill argues when he doesn't understand the science, ad hominem.

** ROTFLAMO !!

All the "Ad Hominem" garbage plus a MASSIVE flood of * false logic * is coming for YOU !!

Do you have such Autistic Meltdowns regularly ?

...... Phil

søndag den 22. august 2021 kl. 04.08.16 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 9:44:16 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > søndag den 22. august 2021 kl. 03.26.09 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 8:16:40 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > søndag den 22. august 2021 kl. 01.52.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del....@gmail.com:
> > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 7:19:30 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 23.07.19 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm..del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:48:10 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 22.36.51 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:22:45 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.59.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 3:42:47 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.31.59 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Say power is required to produce torque is simply a falsehood. At zero RPM or zero MPH you can produce enormous forces with zero power. Every piece of furniture in this house is exerting force on the floor and yet nothing heats up from the power.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > velocity is zero so power is zero
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes. If power determines acceleration, then that is also zero. So how does the object ever start to move if the power is zero at zero velocity? To reach any velocity other than zero requires non-zero acceleration which you don't have at zero velocity if power determines acceleration.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hell, the acceleration equation based on power is not defined at zero velocity since it has a division by zero.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The two are related by a very simple equation as you have shown. I don't know why people can't understand their simple relationship.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The arguments that power determines acceleration is very clearly debunked by considering the power consumed by initiating movement from zero velocity or rotation. At that initial condition there is zero power, so if power is required to accelerate, then acceleration from zero is impossible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > accelerating from zero to zero is rather pointless, as soon as velocity isn't zero it takes power
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is very clearly demonstrated by the power, torque and acceleration curves of an EV vs. speed. The initial torque is constant from zero to some RPM as is the acceleration. The power begins as a ramp with constant slope. Teslas reach a point where they switch to constant power so the torque then slopes down as does the acceleration.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Every part of this graph shows it is torque that produces acceleration.
> > > > > > > > > > > > but at anything but zero rpm (velocity) exerting that torque takes power
> > > > > > > > > > > Irrelevant, you can't get there with zero power which is what you have at zero velocity.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The torque and acceleration curves are identical other than perhaps a scale factor while the power curve is totally different. How can you be so blind to this?
> > > > > > > > > > torque, speed(rpm), and power is directly related just like current voltage and power
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > acceleration * time = velocity, velocity(rpm) * torque = power
> > > > > > > > > You keep writing these same two equations. What is the one equation for acceleration as a function of power?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > a = P/(m*v) for v>0
> > > > > > > Ok, so what is the definition for v = 0?
> > > > > > F/m and F is depending on engine torque and gearing and the gearing related to how much power you
> > > > > > have because otherwise you run out of rpm before you reach any speed
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and if you are accelerating v is not zero
> > > > > That is exactly the point. When v is initially zero the power is also zero. So either acceleration does not depend on power or you can't accelerate from a dead stop. Pick one. It is simple, rational logic. It is clear and unambiguous. Either accept it or explain what I am doing wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > At this point I think you see the fallacy and we both know I'm not wrong.
> > > > talking past each other,
> > > >
> > > > acceleration it determined by the torque at the wheels which is determined by the torque of the motor and the gearing
> > > > but you can't just pick a very low gearing to get more torque at the wheels because then you run out of rpm before you
> > > > reach much speed, the combination of torque and rpm is power
> > > No, at this point I think you understand that it is torque that drives acceleration and we are not talking past one another. Anything else you add is just fluff to make yourself feel better about it. I never said power is not involved. Power is the direct result of applying a force over a distance in some time interval. That is the RESULT of the force and acceleration, not the cause of it. The "arguments" made about power being required to have acceleration is misguided as I have demonstrated by the lack of power when speed is zero. Power is a separate measurement of a directly related parameter.
> > > > in the end accelerating a mass from 0 to X requires adding kinetic energy, the more power you have the faster you can add that energy
> > > > assuming you can match you power source to the sink, which is what the gearing is for
> > > Sure, applying a force over a distance is doing work. The rate of work is power. So by definition accelerating a mass involves power.
> > so if you have more power you can accelerate faster
> You mean if you have more force you can accelerate faster. The higher power is the result of applying that force.

you can trade speed for force with a gearbox

>
> I don't get why you continue to debate this. I've clearly shown you that power causing acceleration is a fallacy with the example starting at velocity of zero which means power is zero. Are you not able to understand simple math?

do you under stand time? I can easily produce several thousand Nm with long wrench

> > >Power doesn't define the acceleration. Acceleration defines the power. Force defines the acceleration. Talk about matching the power source to the sink is the sort of stuff that was important in selecting gear ratios and shift points required with internal combustion engines. It has little to do with the fundamentals of acceleration and force.
> > >
> > > So are we done now? The pertinent equation is a = f / m, right?
> > sure, if time stands still
> Lol! Ok, I'll put you in the camp with Pill, unable to learn calculus or even simpler algebra. What is the power at velocity zero? ZERO! What is the acceleration? a = f / m. It's not hard. You just have to stop believing in misguided misconceptions about time standing still. If power determines acceleration you can have all the time in the world, but the velocity will remain zero because the power remains at zero. So clearly not time standing still, just all movement stands still since at zero velocity power is zero..

no, power at zero speed is more like infinite force

>
> I think at this point you are just posting to get a rise out of me. Pill has his limitations, but you seem more intelligent than that. Do you also believe instantaneous acceleration is a math concept that has no basis in reality?
>

a = dv/dt when dt approches zero isn't that just a math concept?

lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
===============

> a = dv/dt when dt approches zero isn't that just a math concept?

** Of course.

A force imparts neither acceleration nor energy to a mass in zero time.
Just as Ohms law does not allow an * increase* in voltage

Cos that is crazy, autistic thinking.

....... Phil

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 11:22:42 PM UTC-4, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> ==========================
> >>
> > > > > *Instantaneous acceleration* is purely a math concept - it has no reality.
> > >
> > > > LOL!!! Good thing Pill never tried to learn calculus.
> > > ** Massive irrlevence and LIE.
> > >
> > > (I was the best math & science student in my high school ) .
>
> > I don't see you saying you learned calculus.
> ** Course I did - I went on to do Honours level EE at Sydney University.
>
> Honours level Pure Math and Applied Math too plus Honours level Physics.
> Small lectures, separate from the rest and done the old fashioned way.
> No recorded TV lectures or printed notes like the teaching and med students got.
> > If you had you must understand that there is such a thing as instantaneous force,
> ** An Applied Math concept.
> *Instantaneous acceleration* is purely a math concept - it has no reality..
> Allow even the tiniest amount of time to pass and there is energy transfer * requiring power *.

Which is irrelevant. If the velocity is zero an infinite amount of time can pass and the power is still zero. The only way to get non-zero power is to have non-zero velocity. If acceleration is driven by power there is no way to get movement started for power to transfer. In the real world the acceleration is driven by the force and not the power, so acceleration starts on application of force even if the initial power is zero.

Why can't you understand such a simple concept. It's not a math trick or "purely a math concept" which is a BS idea anyway. Math is math. Either the math applies or it doesn't. Calculus is exactly about "summing" the infinitesimals that are each an instant in time. So clearly you don't understand calculus no matter what honors level you took. That you can't understand such a basic concept as zero makes me seriously doubt Sidney university.

So much for honors math. Maybe you should have taken honors physics? This really is physics 101 stuff you know.

> > > > And at the point in time when this is starting the velocity is zero and the power is zero.
> > So how does it get from zero power to non-zero power???
> > With zero velocity there is no power, so no acceleration.
> > How do you get to non-zero velocity and non-zero power if acceleration is determined by power?
> ** Desperate * FOOLS * ask *meaningless questions* when they have no case..
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Yes, this is how Pill argues when he doesn't understand the science, ad hominem.
> ** ROTFLAMO !!
>
> All the "Ad Hominem" garbage plus a MASSIVE flood of * false logic * is coming for YOU !!

By "false logic" you mean logic you can't understand? Yes, there seems to be a lot of that. But you can't seem to construct any logical argument yourself, so I guess that says it all.

> Do you have such Autistic Meltdowns regularly ?

Ok, I won't bother you with reasoned discussion further. I expect the profanity (did you learn that at Sidney as well), but just once in a while I do expect a brain cell to fire once in a while.

Interesting that you get wrapped around the axle of the infinitesimal concept, but you still fail to see that the argument doesn't rely on that. Even if you get past the infinitesimal you should understand that with a constant force the acceleration from zero is constant as the speed ramps up while the power has to ramp up from zero. So clearly the acceleration is directly proportional to the force while not at all proportional to the power. You can plug in p / v for force but that clearly leads to the initial condition paradox. Even lang excluded the condition of v = 0 in his equation which means the equation can't apply to the real world where v can be zero.

See if you can understand that.

--

Rick C.

-+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 11:47:05 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> søndag den 22. august 2021 kl. 04.08.16 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 9:44:16 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > søndag den 22. august 2021 kl. 03.26.09 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del....@gmail.com:
> > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 8:16:40 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > søndag den 22. august 2021 kl. 01.52.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 7:19:30 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 23.07.19 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:48:10 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 22.36.51 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:22:45 PM UTC-4, lang....@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.59.35 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 3:42:47 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > lørdag den 21. august 2021 kl. 21.31.59 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Say power is required to produce torque is simply a falsehood. At zero RPM or zero MPH you can produce enormous forces with zero power. Every piece of furniture in this house is exerting force on the floor and yet nothing heats up from the power.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > velocity is zero so power is zero
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. If power determines acceleration, then that is also zero. So how does the object ever start to move if the power is zero at zero velocity? To reach any velocity other than zero requires non-zero acceleration which you don't have at zero velocity if power determines acceleration.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hell, the acceleration equation based on power is not defined at zero velocity since it has a division by zero.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The two are related by a very simple equation as you have shown. I don't know why people can't understand their simple relationship.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The arguments that power determines acceleration is very clearly debunked by considering the power consumed by initiating movement from zero velocity or rotation. At that initial condition there is zero power, so if power is required to accelerate, then acceleration from zero is impossible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > accelerating from zero to zero is rather pointless, as soon as velocity isn't zero it takes power
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is very clearly demonstrated by the power, torque and acceleration curves of an EV vs. speed. The initial torque is constant from zero to some RPM as is the acceleration. The power begins as a ramp with constant slope. Teslas reach a point where they switch to constant power so the torque then slopes down as does the acceleration.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every part of this graph shows it is torque that produces acceleration.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but at anything but zero rpm (velocity) exerting that torque takes power
> > > > > > > > > > > > Irrelevant, you can't get there with zero power which is what you have at zero velocity.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The torque and acceleration curves are identical other than perhaps a scale factor while the power curve is totally different. How can you be so blind to this?
> > > > > > > > > > > torque, speed(rpm), and power is directly related just like current voltage and power
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > acceleration * time = velocity, velocity(rpm) * torque = power
> > > > > > > > > > You keep writing these same two equations. What is the one equation for acceleration as a function of power?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > a = P/(m*v) for v>0
> > > > > > > > Ok, so what is the definition for v = 0?
> > > > > > > F/m and F is depending on engine torque and gearing and the gearing related to how much power you
> > > > > > > have because otherwise you run out of rpm before you reach any speed
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and if you are accelerating v is not zero
> > > > > > That is exactly the point. When v is initially zero the power is also zero. So either acceleration does not depend on power or you can't accelerate from a dead stop. Pick one. It is simple, rational logic. It is clear and unambiguous. Either accept it or explain what I am doing wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At this point I think you see the fallacy and we both know I'm not wrong.
> > > > > talking past each other,
> > > > >
> > > > > acceleration it determined by the torque at the wheels which is determined by the torque of the motor and the gearing
> > > > > but you can't just pick a very low gearing to get more torque at the wheels because then you run out of rpm before you
> > > > > reach much speed, the combination of torque and rpm is power
> > > > No, at this point I think you understand that it is torque that drives acceleration and we are not talking past one another. Anything else you add is just fluff to make yourself feel better about it. I never said power is not involved. Power is the direct result of applying a force over a distance in some time interval. That is the RESULT of the force and acceleration, not the cause of it. The "arguments" made about power being required to have acceleration is misguided as I have demonstrated by the lack of power when speed is zero. Power is a separate measurement of a directly related parameter.
> > > > > in the end accelerating a mass from 0 to X requires adding kinetic energy, the more power you have the faster you can add that energy
> > > > > assuming you can match you power source to the sink, which is what the gearing is for
> > > > Sure, applying a force over a distance is doing work. The rate of work is power. So by definition accelerating a mass involves power.
> > > so if you have more power you can accelerate faster
> > You mean if you have more force you can accelerate faster. The higher power is the result of applying that force.
> you can trade speed for force with a gearbox

Which is irrelevant. It's not a tradeoff, the acceleration is based on the force. You can increase the force by changing the gearing. So? More force means faster acceleration... but the power is the same. So clearly the acceleration depends on the force, not the power.

> > I don't get why you continue to debate this. I've clearly shown you that power causing acceleration is a fallacy with the example starting at velocity of zero which means power is zero. Are you not able to understand simple math?
> do you under stand time? I can easily produce several thousand Nm with long wrench

So??? I can get a dollar changed for four quarters. So?

> > > >Power doesn't define the acceleration. Acceleration defines the power. Force defines the acceleration. Talk about matching the power source to the sink is the sort of stuff that was important in selecting gear ratios and shift points required with internal combustion engines. It has little to do with the fundamentals of acceleration and force.
> > > >
> > > > So are we done now? The pertinent equation is a = f / m, right?
> > > sure, if time stands still
> > Lol! Ok, I'll put you in the camp with Pill, unable to learn calculus or even simpler algebra. What is the power at velocity zero? ZERO! What is the acceleration? a = f / m. It's not hard. You just have to stop believing in misguided misconceptions about time standing still. If power determines acceleration you can have all the time in the world, but the velocity will remain zero because the power remains at zero. So clearly not time standing still, just all movement stands still since at zero velocity power is zero.
> no, power at zero speed is more like infinite force

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 11:58:58 PM UTC-4, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> ==============> > a = dv/dt when dt approches zero isn't that just a math concept?
> ** Of course.
>
> A force imparts neither acceleration nor energy to a mass in zero time.
> Just as Ohms law does not allow an * increase* in voltage

That is absolutely not true. Velocity can not be changed instantaneously. There is nothing to say that acceleration can not change instantaneously.

a = f / m

Are you saying force can not change instantaneously? There is no theoretical limitation to that. Even if that is true in a practical sense, there is no need to change acceleration any faster than the force changes as they are directly proportional. But if you want acceleration to change with a zero velocity it can't happen by applying power since the power is always zero at zero velocity. You want to hand wave this away as a math issue, but you are stuck with it. With the power at zero initially, it can't be applied to change the acceleration until the velocity is non zero. Chicken and egg.

--

Rick C.

+--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209