Speed of Force or 'Transfer of Momentum'

Status
Not open for further replies.
If the person(swimmer) is adding(losing) energy E and water is RECEIVING the E; then how the swimmer(person) is moving forward due to "Reaction-Force" as explained in the example?

The person is converting some of the chemcial potential enegy of their body into kentic energy but a large percentage of the converted potential energy is lost to friction which is putting energy into the water. If the person stops swiming the water friction will stop the person and then all of the energy will go to the water from friction.
 
wasn't this already answered?

I am NOT kidding, you really appear to have short term memory loss.

Your post #253 is incomplete and wrong. If you compare your post with the example of the swimmer, you have only explained action-force of the swimmer. You remain completely silent about the reaction-force.

In other words, your idea of "reaction-force" and the "reaction-force" as explained in the example of swimmer are not matching.
 
The person is converting some of the chemcial potential enegy of their body into kentic energy but a large percentage of the converted potential energy is lost to friction which is putting energy into the water. If the person stops swiming the water friction will stop the person and then all of the energy will go to the water from friction.

What you explained here is basically "transfer of energy from the swimmer to the water". This is "action-force" of the swimmer to the water. As per the example the swimmer does not move due to "action-force".

The swimmer moves due to "reaction-force". So, what about "reaction-force"? How energy transfer is happening in "reaction-force" ?
 
What you explained here is basically "transfer of energy from the swimmer to the water". This is "action-force" of the swimmer to the water. As per the example the swimmer does not move due to "action-force".

The swimmer moves due to "reaction-force". So, what about "reaction-force"? How energy transfer is happening in "reaction-force" ?

What exactly is your question? The swimmer pushes against the water and the reaction force is the water pushing against the swimmmer.
 
What exactly is your question?

My main question here is: whether action-force and reaction-force as explained in the example are simultaneous or not?

In other words, whether the "energy transfer in action-force(from the swimmer to the water)" and the "energy transfer in reaction-force(from the water to the swimmer)" are simultaneous or not?


The swimmer pushes against the water and the reaction force is the water pushing against the swimmmer.

This is right. So, in the reaction-force some energy transfer is happening from the water to the swimmer.
 
This was my post: (#253)

Lol.

hansda, you have misinterpreted CoE to mean that only one change can happen at any one time. There is no "double input energy" here.

Ball A loses energy by that amount and Ball B gains it. CoE.



which I said applies to your question:

So, you mean to say, due to action-force ball/mass B gains energy and due to reaction-force ball/mass A loses energy. Correct?

Now consider this example of action-reaction forces for a swimmer.

Who is gaining energy and who is losing energy here?






Your post #253 is incomplete and wrong. If you compare your post with the example of the swimmer, you have only explained action-force of the swimmer. You remain completely silent about the reaction-force.

In other words, your idea of "reaction-force" and the "reaction-force" as explained in the example of swimmer are not matching.

I didn't even use the term "action-force". So I have no idea what you're talking about.
 
My main question here is: whether action-force and reaction-force as explained in the example are simultaneous or not?

In other words, whether the "energy transfer in action-force(from the swimmer to the water)" and the "energy transfer in reaction-force(from the water to the swimmer)" are simultaneous or not?

Yes they are simultaneous.



...some energy transfer is happening from the water to the swimmer.
from the swimmer's glycogen to the swimmer's body and the water.
 
This was my post: (#253)





which I said applies to your question:










I didn't even use the term "action-force". So I have no idea what you're talking about.

I already told you your post #253 does not match with the example of the swimmer. Your post #253 does not apply completely to my post #254.
 
I already told you your post #253 does not match with the example of the swimmer. Your post #253 does not apply completely to my post #254.

Please explain how, again. Your last explanation wasn't very clear.
 
Yes they are simultaneous.

If both the energy transfers(from the swimmer to water(E) and from water to swimmer(E)) are simultaneous, then we are having a total energy 2E in the system due to input energy E (which is done by the swimmer to the water).

So, where is the conservation of energy?
 
Please explain how, again. Your last explanation wasn't very clear.

In your post#253, you only considered energy transfer from ball A to ball B. You did not consider energy transfer from ball B to ball A.

In the swimming example, the "swimmer" can be compared with "ball A" and the 'water' can be compared with 'ball B'.
 
If both the energy transfers(from the swimmer to water(E) and from water to swimmer(E)) are simultaneous, then we are having a total energy 2E in the system due to input energy E (which is done by the swimmer to the water).

So, where is the conservation of energy?

The water does not transfer energy to the swimmer. Let's just look at an arm moving through the water. The arm has kenetic energy. The movement puts a force on the water there some reactive force of the water. It is rather complicated since the water is a liquid so the water moves out of the way of the moving arm, but there is some reactive force. This result in a net force on you shoulder.

Why do you always try to make things more difficult?

edit: Removed the part refering to normal force - didn't want hansda off on another tangent.
 
Last edited:
If both the energy transfers(from the swimmer to water(E) and from water to swimmer(E)) are simultaneous, then we are having a total energy 2E in the system due to input energy E (which is done by the swimmer to the water).

So, where is the conservation of energy?
You keep saying that wrong: there is only one energy transfer and it is from swimmer to water.
 
Can you clarify about action-reaction pair in your following example? I will give you two options. Choose one of these two options for action-reaction pair.

There's a net energy transfer from A to B.

Option-1) Object B gaining energy is ACTION and object A losing the same energy is REACTION.


Option-2) Energy transfer from object A to object B is ACTION and the energy transfer from object B to object A is REACTION.


Which option is true? Option-1 or Option-2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top