<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Autodynamics revisited</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.geometricrate.com/blog/sciences/cranks/autodynamics-revisited/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.geometricrate.com/blog/sciences/cranks/autodynamics-revisited/</link>
	<description>Is impressive like the tallest midget.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:25:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: cmb</title>
		<link>http://www.geometricrate.com/blog/sciences/cranks/autodynamics-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-99</link>
		<dc:creator>cmb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 01:30:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geometricrate.com/blog/wordpress/2007/03/03/autodynamics-revisited/#comment-99</guid>
		<description>Good question! The interpretation of the units of energy isn&#039;t at all trivial.  For starters there are a lot of different forms of energy, including&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;Potential (Chemical, Elastic, Gravitational, Nuclear)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Heat&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Kinetic&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Electrical&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Electromagnetic&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;etc.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In each case it is reasonable to expect that &#039;energy&#039; could mean something completely different.  However, in essence the definition of energy for each of these wildly different bits of physics can be boiled down to:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;i&gt;Energy is the capacity to perform mechanical work&lt;/i&gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;

&#039;Work&#039; is again a bit tricky to understand (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work), but in a simple case &lt;i&gt;Mechanical work&lt;/i&gt; may be defined as (in one dimension) a force multiplied by a distance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The units of force are kg m / s^2 (mass x acceleration).  The units of work (and therefore energy) are Force x distance (mass x length^2/time^2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So &lt;b&gt;physically &quot;the energy of an object represents the force it can exert multiplied by the distance over which it can apply this force&quot; (Force x Distance)&lt;/b&gt;, or equivalently &quot;energy is the amount of work an object can perform&quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good question! The interpretation of the units of energy isn&#8217;t at all trivial.  For starters there are a lot of different forms of energy, including</p>
<ul>
<li>Potential (Chemical, Elastic, Gravitational, Nuclear)</li>
<li>Heat</li>
<li>Kinetic</li>
<li>Electrical</li>
<li>Electromagnetic</li>
<li>etc.</li>
</ul>
<p>
In each case it is reasonable to expect that &#8216;energy&#8217; could mean something completely different.  However, in essence the definition of energy for each of these wildly different bits of physics can be boiled down to:</p>
<p><i>Energy is the capacity to perform mechanical work</i>  </p>
<p>&#8216;Work&#8217; is again a bit tricky to understand (see e.g. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work)</a>, but in a simple case <i>Mechanical work</i> may be defined as (in one dimension) a force multiplied by a distance.</p>
<p>The units of force are kg m / s^2 (mass x acceleration).  The units of work (and therefore energy) are Force x distance (mass x length^2/time^2).</p>
<p>So <b>physically &#8220;the energy of an object represents the force it can exert multiplied by the distance over which it can apply this force&#8221; (Force x Distance)</b>, or equivalently &#8220;energy is the amount of work an object can perform&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete</title>
		<link>http://www.geometricrate.com/blog/sciences/cranks/autodynamics-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-98</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:11:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geometricrate.com/blog/wordpress/2007/03/03/autodynamics-revisited/#comment-98</guid>
		<description>Hi,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not being a physicsy type, can you tell me what the unit of energy kg m^2 s^-2 actually means?  Its easy to see what units of speed mean (how far in how long!) for example, but what is that unit telling me about energy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cheers,&lt;br /&gt;

Pete</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>Not being a physicsy type, can you tell me what the unit of energy kg m^2 s^-2 actually means?  Its easy to see what units of speed mean (how far in how long!) for example, but what is that unit telling me about energy?</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Pete</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark A. Norris</title>
		<link>http://www.geometricrate.com/blog/sciences/cranks/autodynamics-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-97</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark A. Norris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Mar 2007 13:11:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geometricrate.com/blog/wordpress/2007/03/03/autodynamics-revisited/#comment-97</guid>
		<description>Nice post. I&#039;ll stick a link on my mega post. I still can&#039;t believe I missed that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice post. I&#8217;ll stick a link on my mega post. I still can&#8217;t believe I missed that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
