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

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Harold Weiss" <hweiss-at-new.rr-dot-com> 

Hi Guys,

The horsepower unit came from Shetland ponies working in the mines.  I have
seen draft horse pulls, and a pair of Belgins can put out 44HP or 22HP each.
A Morgan can put out around 7-8HP.  Horses are always stronger than they
seem.

David E Weiss


 > 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
 >
 >
 >