What is Inertia

[Isaac sur Noos]

Please, Ric, that is being picky, seems to me we tend to use the term
inertia when talking of moi, that is all and have been straightened
enough.

Yet difficult enough to follow this kind of thread without being
necessary to have things straightened more than necessary.

Most important to me is the fact that the same force is due to
accelerate a yet moving objet, the most annoying one is that the
leverage vary during the stroke.

Another is that the key is not on a real pivot point .

Best Bests .

Isaac


------------------------------------
Isaac OLEG
accordeur - reparateur - concert
oleg-i@noos.fr
19 rue Jules Ferry
94400 VITRY sur SEINE
tel: 033 01 47 18 06 98
fax: 33 01 47 18 06 90
mobile: 033 06 60 42 58 77
------------------------------------


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org]De la part de
> Richard Brekne
> Envoye : mercredi 24 decembre 2003 12:22
> A : College and University Technicians; Newtonburg
> Objet : Re: What is Inertia
>
>
>
>
> "Don A. Gilmore" wrote:
> >
> > There are no units of "inertia"; one  object cannot have
> more "inertia" than another.  It can have more kinetic
> > energy, or momentum, or mass, or velocity, or indeed
> "moment" of inertia
> > than another object since those are measurable,
> quantifiable properties.
>
>
> I understand exactly what you are saying, as I understand
> exactly what
> the others are saying. But I have to point out (without taking a
> position on the matter myself) that there are three
> declared definitions
> for inertia on pianotech by various folks with some degree
> of physicis
> knowledge. Let me list them.
>
>
> 1. Don Gilmore... inertia is a concept, not a quantity, has
> nothing to
> do with size, mass, velocity or anything else. Is simply
> the fact that
> objects with mass tend to resist any change in velocity. No object
> regardless of mass has any more inertia then any other mass.
>
> 2. Sarah and Mark.... inertia is very much like Don describes, yet
> inertia is mass related... a larger mass will definatly have more
> inertia then a smaller mass.
>
> 3. Jim Ellis.  inertia is clearly mass related its very
> hard to read his
> definition without concluding he means that inertia is related to
> acceleration and /or velocity... That  relation to
> acceleration seems a
> bit unclear... but as I read through his posts I get that he first
> said... Inertia = mass x velocity-squared, then after some debate
> changed this to Inertia = mass x acceleration-squared. His last post
> seemed to draw this up a bit differently
>
> "Inertia is a minifestation, a property, an effect, of
> acceleration and
> deceleration.  It's proportional to the square of the
> change in speed,
> or velocity."
>
> What I'd like to see at this point is that since Don,
> Sarah, Mark, and
> Jim all are people we all rely on for physics insights, and
> because they
> all present clearly different definitions of this
> concept,,, that these
> four all bang this one through until they arrive at a
> common definiton
> for us.
>
>
> grin.... NOW I will state my own position... tentatively...ok ?? :)
> Seems to me that Don is correct... except I have a hard time
> understanding or accepting that "one  object cannot have
> more "inertia"
> than another". If this is true then either inertia is a constant, or
> inertia is just plain undefined... as in divideing by zero
> more or less.
> So I lean towards Sarah and Mark. But I want to see you 4
> hashing this
> out so we can past the problem.... as clearly any discussion about
> action mechanics on this list is going to be rather
> meaningless unless
> we can agree on what terms like inertia mean.
>
> Cheers
> RicB
> _______________________________________________
> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>