The Two Flavours of Work

[rlortie]

When I wrote: "Yanking your Chain" it was not all intended to be pun.

Sometimes getting a friction fit bearing race off a spindle after a few years of neglect can seem almost futile. I learned at an early age an old trick from my uncle who worked in a steam locomotive shop.

He would take a heavy chain (3/8" links about 10' long and wrap it around the bearing. Step back leaving slack in the chain and give it a yank. Nine times out of ten after one or two yanks, the bearing would come flying off the spindle.

Ralph

[Grimer]

Mark

I have just written a reply and submitted it but I got - Website Unavailable.
and my reply disappeared into the aether.

I'll redo it in the morning - offline next time.

[jim_mich]

Website Unavailable.
and my reply disappeared into the aether.

Hint... sometime when that happens you can press the backspace key and the browser will simply use the data from its memory and your text will still be there.

[Grimer]

Thanks for that tip, Jim. That's very useful. It is so irritating when one loses one's work.

For any long stuff I normally prepare it off line to avoid the hazard of clicking the wrong thing.

But for short stuff like this I usually just us the quick reply box.

Thanks again,

Frank

[Grimer]

Grimer

I was going to ask you to re-read my first two posts in this thread again, without formulating an answer in your brain until after you finished reading them. But I believe that I've garnered enough from your response to come to a conclusion.

When you write things like "jerk energy" and "jerk (angular momentum) is conserved", it reinforces my belief that you think that Jerk IS energy and not simply a term that means "the rate of change of acceleration". I [also] fail to see how the concept of "the 3rd derivative of position" can be interpreted as energy itself.
To me, Jerk is just the result of work done, and nothing more. Jerk itself is not kinetic energy. KE is a separate part of the action [application of force].
If you wish to transmute effect into cause, well, I guess you can try.

I'm a little annoyed that your best response to my questions was to be about as vague as you could be... "Bessler has given us evidence of a minimum value."

The thing is, Frank, when I combine that with things like "because they are zillions of derivatives away from KE" [emphasis mine] and "Jerk x time doesn't involve movement", I begin to think that maybe Ralph (rlortie) is right. When I first read your initial post, I kinda thought at the time, this guy's gotta be joking. But I figured it might be a good opportunity to get you to not only explain/define "jerk energy", but also to describe the potential that it might have to help "solve the puzzle" - to everyone here, in simple terms.

But I fear that that's not to be, so I'll ask you to please get back to your mathematical argument. I look forward to the math wizzes' critiques of your discourse.
Unless all this is about pulling our legs, and one-upmanship?

Anyway, you have my apology for side-tracking your thread. If that's the case... for all I know, I played right into your hands.

And, by the way, the definitions that Tarzier79 quoted me with were from Wikipedia - not my words. It was just easier to copy and paste from the web, rather than transcribing something from a textbook off the shelf.

I've been giving a lot of thought to your post since accidentally deleting my first reply and realise that you need to know where I am coming from if you are to stand any hope of grasping my approach to mechanics.

In order to do that you need to go to my web site and read
IN 55_70.txt.

It was written and accepted by my peers and superiors as an internal speculative note and published in the Building Research Establishment, (part of the UK Department of the Environment) series of internal notes.

It doesn't have any heavy maths but it does have ideas which are bound to give huge cognitive dissonance to your existing framework of scientific understanding.

When you've read it you will realise I'm not joking.
Please give me any comments you wish to make and we can go from there.

I will quite understand if you find the subject scientific pornography.
I will also understand if you are so revolted that you cannot complete your reading of the note, wish to drop the whole subject and terminate our exchange of posts.

Oh! One other thing, the section on time was published in the Journal of Theoretics. You should find it if you Google "Nature of Time", Grimer.

[jim_mich]

I had trouble finding the file mentioned by Grimer because the file name was not "NOTE NO IN 55/70" but instead the file name is "IN 50 70.txt". For those interested in reading Grimer's paper, here is a direct link to the text file mentioned by Grimer.

:)}

[Grimer]

As you can see from the rather pixellated attachment, I have it as IN 55_70.txt, Jim, not 50 70

I've now corrected the link in my post.

Thanks for pointing out the error, Jim. I copied the title from the note itself and didn't think of checking with the main index.

[jim_mich]

You are right, I typed 50 instead of 55 as the file name. But the click-able link that I gave (which I copied and pasted and tested to make sure it worked before posting) takes people straight to the file.

The point I was trying to polity make was...
"Why the hell didn't you post a direct click-able link to the text file, instead of making a potential reader jump though hoops to find it?"

But hey, whatever. :)}