[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: some of the reason why energy and power definitions areconfusing

Original poster: DRIEBEN-at-midsouth.rr-dot-com 

John, Al, all,

It has been my understanding that the "horsepower" unit was
originally derived from the rate of work that an average work
horse could put out for 8 to 10 hours a day, like pulling a
plough. I suppose this was suppose to represent the work out-
put of an average healthy, middle aged adult horse, but of
what particular breed of horse, I don't know. I'm no equestri-
an expert, but I do know that there's a significant difference
between the size and strength of a Shetland and a Clydesdale!
So is it Shetland HP or Clydesdale) HP ;^/?? "I" would tend
to think somewhere in between.

I guess once industrialization took affect, the horse power was
a well-known albeit ill-defined unit that most people were fa-
miliar with. As to how the exact 746 watt (550 ft/lbs per second
or 33,000 ft/lbs per minute-kinetic measure) unit was derived as
the standard "horsepower", I have no idea. Maybe a Google search
would reveal more. BTW, "human" power is supposed to be about
1/8 to 1/10 of a HP, so I suppose that's about 75 to 95 watts?
But is that the strength of an "average" 150 lb. man or a 250
lb. body builder ;^)))))

David Rieben

 > >
 > >Al Erpel
 > I've had the same issues twisting thru my mind, especially with
 > one
 > horsepower equalling 746 or whatever, watts.  Who in the hell came
 > up with
 > that one?  And how do you prove it?  Small horse, medium horse?
 > What if we
 > want to use camels?  How many watts per bactrian?  There are a few
 > problems
 > with the way science has been taught but we tend to build upon
 > what is 'known'.
 > For coiling, we need our own specific definitions.  I mean math is
 > math and
 > we should all be capable, perhaps better than most but these
 > issues of what
 > is what is driving all but the highly educated out of the
 > conversation, and
 > most likely some of them as well.  We need some 'rock-solid'
 > definitions,
 > specific to this art, that all can build upon.  Anyone else see an
 > evolving
 > art here?
 > I'll not pretend to be even vaguely qualified to set these out but
 > I can
 > sure incorporate them into my work and thinking, once defined.
 > Drizzle, Drazzle, Druzzle Drone, Help Mr. Wizard!  Where's Antonio
 > on this one?
 > John