Touchweight was Cockeyed hammers / Don Gilmore

[Richard Brekne]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment


"Don A. Gilmore" wrote:

> Hi Richard: You're confusing a lot of terms.

Well, I wont disagree with you there... but in my defense... grin...
given the seemingly conflicting explainations... anybodies confusion on
the matter shouldnt suprise at all.


> Inertia is not a quantifiable property of anything, it's an effect.
> It's not an adjective, it's a noun.

Yes, you've more or less made that point, tho obviously there is some
dissagreement about.

> You don't add or subtract inertia from anything.  It's just a
> scientific property.  I think what you are thinking of is just mass
> and moment of inertia.  Mass is the quality of an object that causes
> it to resist being accelerated.  Moment of inertia is the "rotational"
> equivalent of mass and is the quality of a rotating object that causes
> it to resist angular acceleration (speeding up or slowing down of
> rpm).  The moment of inertial is different from mass since it takes
> into acount the distribution of matter.  In other words, the more
> material that is further from the pivot point, the harder it is to
> accelerate (or decelerate) the object.  That's why flywheels have most
> of their mass toward the outer perimeter. Velocity is meaningless to
> inertia.  Only acceleration can produce/require a force.  Kinetic
> energy (mv^2 / 2) is simply a property of a moving object in terms of
> energy.  It has nothing really to do with inertia.  It is sort of a
> potential energy term and refers to how much energy the moving object
> could produce if you tried to stop it.

..................

> That's why we used it when the hammer struck the string.  The hammer,
> when moving, has usable energy.  To give it that energy we had to
> previously accelerate it to that speed.  To accelerate it requires
> force and that's where the properties of mass and moment of inertia
> come into play.  The more "massy" an object is, the more work you have
> to do and force you have to apply to accelerate it. There's no free
> lunch in physics.  X amount of work done by your finger is going to
> produce X amount of energy in the hammer no matter what the mechanism
> looks like.

The first sentence is more or less what all this is about, and as much
as you say there goes without saying.

Dont you mean x amount of work will produce Y amount of energy ?... or
are you really saying  5 units of work will produce 5 units of energy no
matter whats inbetween?



> Don A. Gilmore
> Mechanical Engineer
> Kansas City

--



Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
UiB, Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/7e/fb/5d/8a/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--