Vibe, Lynn, those who are still disputing this... mother of gawd guys, you have to come away from this acceleration thing.
Now, I want you to read this message real close like, and at each line, determine if my math is correct or incorrect. Now, please quote this entire message, and in the middle where I make my mistake, I want you to put a big bold red message that says, 4Mesh is WRONG HERE. Ok?
Now.
Formula for HP is --------- WORK / TIME = HP
Are we still ok to this point?
Work is defined as
Step 1
Calculate how much work is done by the device. Work is the measure of force times distance. For instance, raising an object weighing 1 Newton 1 meter results in 1 Newton-meter (or 1 Joule) of work. In English units, raising an object weighing 1 pound 1 foot results in 1 foot-pound of work.
I do not see any velocity in that calculation, do you? Now, above Vibe, you were kind enough to mention that I am unable to understand this text I've provided. Would you like for me to quote your "degree in BS" statement about that? It looks to me like you multiply one value times the other. WEIGHT in POUNDS times DISTANCE LIFTED = WORK PERFORMED.
Are we ok so far folks? Problems here?
Step 2
Understand the definition of "weight." Weight is a measurement of mass multiplied the acceleration of gravity. In SI units, kilogram is a measurement of mass, although it is commonly used to refer to weight. 1 kilogram of mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity is 1 Newton of weight. Similarly, in English units, a pound is a measurement of weight, and slugs is a measurement of mass, making a pound equal to 1 slug multiplied by the acceleration of gravity.
Ok, so weight is expressed in POUNDS and it already has gravity included into it. We don't need to include it again do we?
Are we OK to here? We know what a pound is?
1 Pound = 1 Slug * gravity acceleration. ? Still Ok? Should be, there's no calculations to do if we weigh the object we are propelling. Nature does that math for us! Whoopeee.
Step 3
Learn how to define "work." To do work, you must move an object in the same direction as the force that was applied to it. For instance, if you try to lift a box, but can't, you haven't done any work even though the attempt my tire you. If you lift the box and carry it across the room, only the distance that you lifted the box counts as work.
Only the distance you LIFT the box counts as work.
For our purpose, let's just say, ONLY THE DISTANCE YOU LIFT THE BULLET COUNTS AS WORK.
Any troubles to this point Vibe?
Step 4
Determine how much time was required to do the work. If it took 1 second to raise the 1-Newton weight 1 meter, the power of the device that raised the weight is 1 Joule per second or 1 watt. In English units, the device that raised a 1-pound weight 1 foot in 1 second is 1 foot-pound per second.
The time it takes to propel our bullet is one second for 3000 ft in the above examples. It is not 1 second TIMES .0012 seconds. Just 1 second.
Can we agree up to this point? I know this is a toughy cause we have time in there now, but really, just read the damn steps one at a time.
Ok, we need to clarify that english units equation. They do mean, 1 pound, times 1 foot equals foot pounds of work, yes? Am I making a horrible mistake here by just multiplying those figures? Perhaps I should square some of them or all? Maybe the rest of the upright standing world missed something in the equations?
So, so far, work = lbs lifted x feet lifted x time in seconds to do it?
Still ok here? Should we now calculate the residual energy before calculating the horsepower? That would allow us to make astronomical claims. Somehow, I don't see in the examples where they calculate work, then take energy and add that in too. Did I miss something?
So, work is still just work? Now Vibe,
I have a fair handle on the differences between power, energy and work.
Oh yea, well I beg to differ with you. I think you should say, I SHOULD HAVE a fair handle on them, but don't.
Now, to convert that to power, we need to know how long it took to do THAT AMOUNT OF WORK.
We express that in seconds. Yes??? No squares or square roots here eh?
So, WORK = LBS WEIGHT x FEET DISTANCE LIFTED x SECONDS ELAPSED
Gee, where's the how fast it's going part? Did the engineering world leave that out? What the hell do they know about work anyhow.
SO, correct the incorrect line PLEASE. Or, just point out where I'm headed the wrong direction, OK?
1 Lb x 1 ft in 1 second = 1 ft lb / sec
2 lb x 1 ft in .5 seconds = 1 ft lb / sec Hmmm. faster,but still the same work?? Why?
1 lb x 2 ft in .5 seconds = 1 ft lb / sec Hmmm. Faster yet, hmmm, odd...
100 lb x .005 ft in .5 seconds = 1 ft lb / sec Slower? same work?
.005 lb x 100 ft in .5 seconds = 1 ft lb / sec
1 lb x 3000 ft in 1 second = 3000 ft lb / sec
WHOA!!!!! Wait a minute, a POUND at 3000 ft per second is only 3000 ft lbs / second?????? Impossible! Damn equations!
How can that be? Gee 4Mesh, You can't possibly mean that math continues to work even when you change the values can you? Hell, even a .03 lb object lifted the same distance in the same time causes more ft lbs than that in Vibes example?
Ok Vibe, am I wrong yet? Lynn? How am I doing?
I know what it is, I used 3000 ft. I should go back and change that.
3000 lb x 1 ft in 1 second = 3000 ft lb / sec
Ah, that's better. Now it's moving slower so when we square the distance, it is still 1. Vibe likes this equation as long as it's all 1's, but when you throw in numbers greater than 1 and some decimals, it's gets significantly tougher.
Now Here we go
Step 5
Convert foot-pounds per second into horsepower by dividing by 550. You can also convert watts to horsepower if you know that 746 watts equals 1 horsepower.
You mean, all we have to do is divide by 550? Man, I want to do more math than that. How bout I square the 550 just for the hell of it? Nah, that would make the HP sound too small. I think I'll take the square root of 550 and use that instead. That's better, now our HP is higher! Now quite high enough, but better'n ole 4Mesh's example. Using the accepted equations just doesn't give the result I want damn it!
Bill, man, we gotta wonder bout these folks...
Ok. Now, is there anyone out there with a REAL degree in mechanical engineering who can tell me why my 163.63 hp over .001 second example is technically incorrect given the stated input parameters? Hint. I already told you above that there's more to it. However, it will not change the result appreciably. It is however technically incorrect.
Vibe, did you do any work on that Mars Lander project a few years back? You know, the one that made a half mile deep hole in Mars?
Almost an hour and a half of my time wasted to produce this for someone who's parents probably paid significant money for an education that was never received...
