h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oops. Forgot what I actually came here to say. Must be old age...

Giving a witty reply and being told "Mum you say that EVERY day".

Finding that I need a senior moment smiley pretty damn quick as the senior moments are coming thick and fast these days.

Incog.

Gosh, yes. I was having to explain to my son the other day how I was taught to use feet & inches etc & even when metric crept in to exam questions the metric system was not explained. I had to write on my ruler how many metres in a kilometre.

Mind you, it's not so much feeling old as feeling older. I hardly consider myself middle-aged yet

A friend of ours aged 78 was told by her doctor that she was only middle-aged!

Gosh, yes. I was having to explain to my son the other day how I was taught to use feet & inches etc & even when metric crept in to exam questions the metric system was not explained. I had to write on my ruler how many metres in a kilometre.

Mind you, it's not so much feeling old as feeling older. I hardly consider myself middle-aged yet

A friend of ours aged 78 was told by her doctor that she was only middle-aged!

No I'm not just repeating myself - honest! Either my computer or h2g2 is playing up.

Don't worry about it dear. Old people often repeat themselves.

Your friend has a nice doctor. When I went to mine with a bad neck (aged 32) he said it was just old age.

Tefkat, you want me to kill this thread too? I told you in a few others and there were no posts since then

Coincidence surely? Your imminence couldn't possibly be having that sort of effect.

Your getting old when you mistake Eccentrica Gallumbits for Encyclopaedia Britannica

Sorry about this but he did ask?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have a one pound weight bolted to the floor, and try to lift it with one pound of force (or 10, or 50 pounds), you will have applied force and exerted energy, but no work will have been done. If you unbolt the weight, and apply a force sufficient to lift the weight one foot, then one foot pound of work will have been done. If that event takes a minute to accomplish, then you will be doing work at the rate of one foot pound per minute. If it takes one second to accomplish the task, then work will be done at the rate of 60 foot pounds per minute, and so on.
In order to apply these measurements to automobiles and their performance (whether you're speaking of torque, horsepower, newton meters, watts, or any other terms), you need to address the three variables of force, work and time.

Awhile back, a gentleman by the name of Watt (the same gent who did all that neat stuff with steam engines) made some observations, and concluded that the average horse of the time could lift a 550 pound weight one foot in one second, thereby performing work at the rate of 550 foot pounds per second, or 33,000 foot pounds per minute, for an eight hour shift, more or less. He then published those observations, and stated that 33,000 foot pounds per minute of work was equivalent to the power of one horse, or, one horsepower.

Thank you.

Looks like we have a number of separate threads intertwined, or I am getting very confused.

Tefkat, I'll stay on the safe side, have a look at the Noticeboard A411085.

Ancient Brit, If you nail the weight down, there may not be any work done onto it, but there certainly is done a lot of work inside you, resulting in a hot, red face and a lot of sweat.

You're right, Ancient Brit - I DID ask.

The horsepower you're talking about is what I regard as 'proper' horsepower - it's a meaningful unit of power by which you can compare the output of different engines.

The RAC horsepower (and I'm not old enough to remember it in use - I'm just keen on old cars) was a notional rating based entirely on the size of the engine - specifically the bore and the number of cylinders - for taxation purposes.

If you take a look at http://www.designchambers.com/wolfhound/wolfhoundRACHP.htm (if that URL gets modded, just plug "RAC horsepower" into Google - it's the first result) you'll find some calculations to show what you might expect - that you can't ignore the stroke. I'm pleased to see I'd remembered the formula correctly, though.

I'm sure the output of an Austin 7 engine, small and low-powered though it was, was rather more than 7 bhp. Or how about a Singer 9? Like many taxation calculations it was crude and inaccurate, and was to blame for many British pre-war engines being horribly undersquare.

Oh, and torque is a measure of force, specifically turning force, previously quoted in footpounds and now normally given in Nm, whereas the power output of and engine, previously measured in horsepower and now quoted in watts is a measure of, erm, power. Energy, I suppose. It's a while since I did any of this.

Car manufacturers normally quote maximum torque and maximum power - torque generally gives some indication of how the car will accelerate and pull, whilst power gives an idea of maximum speed - VERY roughly.

Sorry Captain Kebab
My posting 290 was a reply to Eccentrica Gumbits posting 280.

However to keep on track

You feel old when you get more fun out of old cars than you do out of old women.

Or when your glad that Alf Garnet doesn't spring to the minds of those who compare you to Victor Meldrew.

It is fun, but I do think we are all trying to up trump each other here, proud of the fact that we can remember paying for our sweeties with farthings, or whatever other memories we have.

My parents, who are over 80, are quite happy that they will not see what happens next. Things have moved so fast in the last two or three decades, and not necessarily for the better. I must agree with them there. They can remember a time when things had value. It makes me sad that our kids have absolutely nothing which they can treasure, because anything that gets broken is best replaced, by a newer and better version - the cost of repair is higher than the cost of a replacement article.

And this attitude applies to the value of time. And life. It can get depressing. I hope you all know what I'm on about - whether you're 15 or 65 - and perhaps someone else might be able to express it better.

That answer was so good I think you've ended this one.

>It makes me sad that our kids have absolutely nothing which they can treasure, because anything that gets broken is best replaced, by a newer and better version - the cost of repair is higher than the cost of a replacement article.<

It occurred to me the other day actually, that this might be a good thing. Maybe, just maybe, the younger generations will grow up to care more about treasuring each other and the planet than about possessions, will are *so* disposable.
I know it's a pipe dream, buit you never know.

>the younger generations will grow up to care more about treasuring each other and the planet than about possessions, will are *so* disposable.<

Well I'm planning to repair (well re-enamel) our old bath (which will apparantly cost ~£300) rather than buy a new one (for £90) because I treasure the planet more than I treasure my bank balance (shhh don't tell the bank that). Disposability will never be a good way to go to help the planet unless things are recyclable.

True enough.

I was suggesting more that it may be a phase we have to go through in order to learn the true value of things than that it was a good thing in and of itself.