Re arrange F=ma to

a=F/m to get the idea.

Acceleration is caused by a force but a forced is not caused by acceleration because to cause acceleration you need force.

 

Ok, so you boost something out of the earth's gravitational field, where it will never return. Is that potential energy? A potential is just that, something that could be, but isn't.

Ok I understand. So potential energy is a "potential" to possess energy and not of some defined energy nature itself. I agree. I think again our confusion was word choice. Stored energy v/s released energy.

Cheers.

 

Re arrange F=ma to

a=F/m to get the idea.

Acceleration is caused by a force but a forced is not caused by acceleration because to cause acceleration you need force.

Can I conclude that you agree with me then? I still think that the equation doesn't explicitly tell you which one causes the other. Writing F=ma is simply easier.

 

Stored energy

Nearly there, potential is real energy. If you would like to confirm this the (TV) engineer's way charge a 1microfarad capacitor to 440 volts potential and then grab hold of it.

I'd say its potential energy (=stored energy) is real.

By the way if you want answers look at this thread

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=23728

I started it for this very reason. Your interpretation is closer than most.

 

Potential energy is real yes. But from what Bill and I was discussing was probably that potential energy is simply "undefined" energy. It is there, but we don't know it's true nature all the time. It is stored, but will change form once released. Hence the word "potential". For example, I think, if we are capable of absolutely containing heat energy in the form of "pure" energy with no loss to the surroundings, that would be some sort of potential energy as well.

Cheers.

 

Although we don't see the outcome of this, the energy goes towards increasing the mass of the baby,

E=MC^2. With expectant mothers, we won't need fossil fuel! Especially not if we can keep n>1.

Baby's mass does not come from energy during gestation. It comes from all the extra food Mom-to-be eats.

 

E=MC^2. With expectant mothers, we won't need fossil fuel! Especially not if we can keep n>1.

LOL That's funny!

 

Nearly there, potential is real energy. If you would like to confirm this the (TV) engineer's way charge a 1microfarad capacitor to 440 volts potential and then grab hold of it.

I'd say its potential energy (=stored energy) is real.

By the way if you want answers look at this thread

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=23728

I started it for this very reason. Your interpretation is closer than most.

I think that the terminology "potential energy" might be misleading to some who might think that the energy itself is potential; i.e., doesn't really exist for some reason. It might be better to think of "potential" in the sense that this energy has the potential to do work.

To continue with the analogy of charge stored in a capacity, water stored behind a dam represents potential energy. The dam applies a large force to the water, and that force is (usually) counterbalanced by an equal and oppositely directed force back on it by the water. If at some time the dam fails to provide a sufficient force, the potential energy of the water behind it rapidly becomes kinetic energy.

 

charge a 1microfarad capacitor

is the key phrase here. For something to gain potential energy you have to input energy, so the stored energy concept is a good way to look at it.

The potential energy can easily be quantified, it is the energy that needs to be input to raise the object's potential (electrical, gravitational whatever) from some reference level to the desired level.

And yes the conventional mechanical definition is 'the capacity to do work', but that is rather tongue in cheek since something has to arrange for the object to be in that condition in the first place.

 

Rule changes to accomadate 1 and zero were made for computer
langage so systems would work.Who going to make the next rule
change. No one can predict change,like your credit card.They said we reserve
the right to change "all terms may change for any ....reason. They did away
with all the fine print and fuzzy math.You will spend a lot energy to keep from
flat lining in real life.This contain math,energy and a formula for change and potenial.
Thanks -Have a nice day.-Loosewire

 

Rule changes to accomadate 1 and zero were made for computer
langage so systems would work.Who going to make the next rule
change. No one can predict change,like your credit card.They said we reserve
the right to change "all terms may change for any ....reason. They did away
with all the fine print and fuzzy math.You will spend a lot energy to keep from
flat lining in real life.This contain math,energy and a formula for change and potenial.
Thanks -Have a nice day.-Loosewire

What rule changes? Zero as a numeral has been around for maybe a thousand years, thanks to the mathematically literate folks in India, and the concept of different bases in numbering systems has been around for many thousands of years. George Boole worked out a system of logic bearing his name that fit very nicely with diode or transistor voltages that could be in either of two states: high or low. Using this logic and a base-2 numbering system, and you have the data in a computer. At some level, all computer programs, data, images, and so on are nothing more than long strings of zeros and ones.

There was a lot of talk about fuzzy math 20 years ago or so, but as far as I know, nothing much came of it.

 

You can show mathematically that potential energy is real energy using the First Law of Thermodynamics.

I will publish the derivation if you like.

 

You are right on it, Boole was what I was referring to.

 

You are right on it, Boole was what I was referring to.

OK. Keep in mind, though, that Boole's work on logic dates back to about the middle of the 19th century, predating electronic computers by a century. Furthermore, computers preceded computer languages, in that the first computers were programmed by hard-wiring connections between components, and later by setting front-panel switches. Sometime after this, John von Neuman made the realization that strings of binary digits could serve as both data and instructions to a computer, which brings us to the era of programming computers by machine code instructions.

Later, someone came up with the idea of a program to translate human-readable instructions (i.e., assembly op-codes) to machine code, and we had the first computer languages, and that takes us to the 1950s. Then came FORTRAN compilers, making it relatively easy for scientists and mathematicians to write programs that performed numeric calculations (COBOL was developed about that time, as well). By the 70s, even higher-level languages, such as Algol, C, and Pascal, were developed.

 

It appears that high-level languages aren't so old after all. There's yet to be seen.

 

There was a lot of talk about fuzzy math 20 years ago or so, but as far as I know, nothing much came of it.

Actually, much was accomplished, but whenever someone tried to decide if they should publish a result, the decision was based on fuzzy math and the answer never perfectly equated to a "yes" value.

 

Then that proposes a question, computer security has to wrap a round
all the knowledge of the past ,future computer programmers.So with gps
and google earth we can find locations around the earth,but to find
a computer virus we have to go into software that has been infected
by knowledgeable persons brain,that has the ability to take over someones
computer and spread the misinformation.