In my article...

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Merenja/Ronald_Pugh_Input-Output_Measurement_Mk5.pdf

I see I have made an error where I say "work done"  but as the footnote leads to the proper term, "power" there should have been no misunderstanding, but sorry if this has caused any confusion.

To define my usage of the nomenclature then...
-----------------------------------------------

When a force acts upon an object to cause a displacement of the object, it is said that work was done upon the object.

Work is a force acting upon an object to cause a displacement.

An object which possesses mechanical energy is able to do work. In fact, mechanical energy is often defined as the ability to do work. Any object which possesses mechanical energy - whether it be in the form of potential energy or kinetic energy - is able to do work. That is, its mechanical energy enables that object to apply a force to another object in order to cause it to be displaced.

Power is the rate at which work is done. It is the work/time ratio.

The standard metric unit of power is the Watt. As is implied by the equation for power, a unit of power is equivalent to a unit of work divided by a unit of time. Thus, a Watt is equivalent to a Joule/second. For historical reasons, the horsepower is occasionally used to describe the power delivered by a machine. One horsepower is equivalent to approximately 746 Watts.

Regards

Ron

 

Sorry Ron, but this is not quite correct.

Forces that act inside a closed system stay in the system and are not called work. In order to qualify as work the force must act upon something outside the system.


Hans von Lieven

"The output has nothing to do with whether a system is closed. Systems without output are non-knowable through observation from the outside"

Ron

I see I have made an error where I say "work done"  but as the footnote leads to the proper term, "power" there should have been no misunderstanding, but sorry if this has caused any confusion.

ok
very good

Gentlman,

Please, I just walked away from a similar debate at Bessler.com...

The term 'work' is clearly defined as moving or displacing a mass, It does not state whether it be confined or not. Time is not accountable in doing work.

This is like telling me that if I lift up my filing cabinet and carry it to the other side of my confined office space that I did not do any 'work'

IMO you must draw a line between working and work accomplished. A hovering helicopter not moving is not doing any work yet the engine and blades are moving air which is a mass and work is being done. Yet after the helicopter does move on and the air returns to its ambient state then with Hans view no work was done.

A pendulum swinging is mass in motion and is a prime example of work being done as outside forces are required to osculate the pendulum, hence a mechanical source of work is accomplished.  Work is related to the distance a force moves an object and not the time it takes to move the object. Nor is their any definition stating that the mass must remain in a displaced area to consider that work was done.

The weight going up and down at the end of a balance beam is a mass in motion, it is being 'displaced' and requires a force to drive it. This is called 'work', the beam is not balanced when in motion just as the pendulum is said to be balanced when static. A pendulum requires three forces to operate, gravity  kinetic and mechanical.

 A Force does no work unless the system is free to move "along the direction" of the Force applied. When a Force and the object's displacement are perpendicular, the work done by the force is zero. A pendulum bob loses its force at point of acclimation.

Pendulums left swinging do 'work', they just do not accomplish any work over a period of time which is not part of the equation. Pendulums have been driving escapements in clocks for over 300 years, so there should be no question as whether they perform work.
 
Ralph

...
This is a work in progress that I have shared with you and I am surprised that no one has pointed out this ... the inefficiency of the solenoid drive... less than 30%.  So the conclusion should be, wow, even with less than a 30% input drive the machine is still over unity!
...

There is neither theoretical evidence nor experimental evidence for OU.
The only evidence for OU is a looped device with a self maintaining movement. We don't have one.

ok
very good

The original has been corrected,

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Merenja/Ronald_Pugh_Input-Output_Measurement_Mk5.pdf

Gentlman,

Please, I just walked away from a similar debate at Bessler.com...

The term 'work' is clearly defined as moving or displacing a mass, It does not state whether it be confined or not. Time is not accountable in doing work.

This is like telling me that if I lift up my filing cabinet and carry it to the other side of my confined office space that I did not do any 'work'

snip
 
Ralph

Excellent post Ralph, as usual, always nice to hear from someone who has hands on experience... it is the great educator.

Just a small correction though... picking up the file cabinet is work, but carrying it across the room is not, does sound silly!

Didn't get around to commenting on your previous post about
Werner Von Braun... what a treat... yes he was an outstanding achiever, what luck to actually have met him, a real hands on guy.

Ron

exnihiloest,

If you will note there was no mention in my article of OU. The only reference was to co-efficiency  of performance, (COP).

Heat pumps have a COP of 3.1 for example and there is no clamor that they be looped?

Lets not muddy the waters here with such inappropriate claims that the pendulum be looped before anyone will believe it.

Ron

sorry ron

but you have to learn more about physics