Taverner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 07:06 PM
Original message |
Which inclines take more energy to climb? Slow and gradual or quick and vertical? |
|
At which point do they equal out?
|
WannaJumpMyScooter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 07:07 PM
Response to Original message |
1. if the height is the same |
|
the energy level is the same to attain it, just a matter of time/exertion
|
donco6
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
WannaJumpMyScooter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 07:07 PM
Response to Original message |
2. if the height is the same |
|
the energy level is the same to attain it, just a matter of time/exertion
|
Spike89
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
The energy required for going up would be equal, but the gradual slope would require more overall energy because you're also moving forward.
|
slackmaster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
12. The energy required to initiate forward motion is cancelled by the energy to stop it |
|
Friction notwithstanding. Forward motion doesn't matter in the long run.
|
muriel_volestrangler
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 07:08 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Are you taking into account energy used for just existing (eg a human being), or energy that gets wasted by going faster (eg in a vehicle subject to friction losses)?
|
Township75
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
10. Glad someone else thought of that. |
|
That was my first thought...does the "engine" operate at equal efficiency under different loads/slopes/etc?
Somehow I doubt the OP will be back with an answer, but if I am wrong, more power to that person.
|
Taverner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
13. I'm back - and my question, I guess, is as a GENERAL principle... |
|
I mean, let's just take the modifications out of the picture (gears, levers, etc) and just go with what I would call its natural state....
Same circumstances for both
Which would use less energy?
|
Taverner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
15. OK looking back at this I understand this was a bad answer |
|
What if we are talking about an engine that is low in torque, but decent in being a Linear Motor...or whatever it is that is opposite to the torque motor.
|
muriel_volestrangler
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
18. engines don't climb, vehicles do |
|
You can't really match torque to efficiency, though. Torque is a measure of angular force, effectively. The torque of an engine is not related in any predictable fashion to the efficiency of the energy conversion of the engine.
Assuming this is about a car, then ideally, I think you'd want to be running the engine at its most efficient point (in terms of converting the chemical power of the fuel to mechanical power), which will be at a certain engine speed, producing a certain power and torque (torque * engine speed = power). Then be in the lowest gear the car has, and then match the incline so that the excess power over what is needed to keep the vehicle moving at that speed is devoted into increasing the potential energy, ie height, of the car. Being in a low gear means the car's losses due to air resistance etc. are kept to a minimum, because it's 'forward' speed is the lowest of your choices.
|
derby378
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 07:09 PM
Response to Original message |
5. How much time do you have to climb? |
|
If time is precious, energy consumption is rather moot.
|
ibegurpard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 07:09 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Drive a loaded truck on I-40 between Kingman AZ and Barstow CA |
|
that'll give you your answer
|
Taverner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
14. Have you ever done that before? |
NashVegas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 07:10 PM
Response to Original message |
7. I'd Rather Do Slow and Gradual |
petronius
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 07:14 PM
Response to Original message |
9. I'd say slow and gradual, and they don't equal out |
|
You'll have to spend a certain amount of energy on the vertical displacement, and that will be the same no matter what path you take. But, on the gentle slope you'll have to spend energy overcoming friction for a longer time, and you'll spend more effort supporting your load against gravity.
So I'd say, as long as you can generate sufficient power, take the short steep route and get it over with...
|
slackmaster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 07:19 PM
Response to Original message |
11. If you ignore friction, the only thing that matters is the difference in height |
|
Between the beginning and the end.
|
WannaJumpMyScooter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
19. Is that not what I said, uhm, twice? |
northoftheborder
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 08:01 PM
Response to Original message |
16. someone who remembers their physics please figure it out. |
bemildred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 08:42 PM
Response to Original message |
17. The change in potential energy is the same. All the rest has to do with experimental setup. nt |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 01st 2024, 09:19 AM
Response to Original message |