That's part of the beauty of Paulo's posts/replies. It's up to the reader to realize why he/she is wrong.

Of course, it can get annoying when you can't figure it out.

It's now just become F***ing with Capets, which is hilarious.

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Well duh.

I love this place.

One crank horsepower from an engine is one horsepower. This does not equate to the statement of 100% efficiency. Horsepower is a measure of work. Efficiency is a measure of the work output relative to the energy input. I can gaurantee to you that an electric motor is not 100% efficient.


ETA: I think you are referring to the inconsistencies in the exact definition of a 1 horse power. An electric horsepower being 746 watts, and a mechanical horsepower being 745.6 or something like that. Again this has nothing to do with mechanical efficiency, or in the case of the electric motor electrical efficiency.

i'm waiting for someone to add some delicious red herring to this. what do you say about getting some cadence involved? say i ride at 200W, either grinding at 80rpm or spinning at 95rpm, with a HR of 140 for the former and 145 for the latter. I must not be doing as much work in the former, right?

Duh.

But didn't you read this...

"I can ski uphill in regular skis and boots without poles, my aerobic fitness is trick.."

His fitness is trick, so, he obviously knows what he's talking about.

---

Steve

http://www.PeaksCoachingGroup.com

Well played. I turn over my king, sir.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

I do not believe any one to date has mentioned thermal efficiencies? We have not gone so far as to distinguish the type of energy input, just the work output relative to input.

I have specifically mentioned electrical and mechanical efficiency, which an electric motor is not 100% efficient, IOW there are mechanical and electrical inefficiencies in an electric motor.

An electric motor definitely produces heat, a sign of less than 100% efficiency, and noise, another sign of less than 100% efficiency. The energy that is converted to heat and noise does not produce work. Unless we capture that energy through another method beyond the function of the motor.

I do not understand why he brought it up either. I also do not understand why we would want to be so inaccurate with our descriptions of the biomechanics of ambulation and the physics involved with work that we would equate walking and running a mile.

Are you unable to have a discussion? If I am wrong I would like to know. I do not want to continue on with incorrect knowledge.

ETA:
Efficiency is the measure of "usefulness" of an operation, process or machine.
Efficiency can be expressed as
ì = Wo/Wi (1)
where
ì = efficiency
Wo = work or power output

Wi = work or power input
Efficiency can be expressed as a percentage or as a per-unit decimal fraction of 1.

Last time i checked ATP was synthesized via the electron transport chain.... oxidative phosphorylation. to understand energy metabolism you start talking about thermodynamics, electrochemistry and equilibrium. I don't even try and own that shit. Maybe someone else can play phd for you

Not all ways of producing ATP were created equally.

You have avoided the issue of you calling me a dumbass for denying your equivication of the caloric costs of running and walking a mile. Do you still stand by this? Why or why not?

Why gild lilies?

So you still disagree with me, and are claiming 100% mechanical and electrical efficiency of electric motors? That would suggest that the potential work of the electrical input is equal to the output work. No loss. This does not follow the laws of thermodynamics to say the least.

Thermal efficiency would not apply in this case.

bodymedia.com looks better

Holy crap-ola. Do you just live to argue on the internet? Did you ever leave the computer to have dinner or something today?

He said 100% efficient. I stated this was incorect due to mechanical and electrical loses. If there was a distinction to be made prior it was not done. Argue my distinction not a strawman you create.

But Body Bugg is what they use on Biggest Loser. It must be right then.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jen

"In order to keep a true perspective on one's importance, everyone should have a dog that worships him and a cat that will ignore him." - Dereke Bruce

Pretty much.

Paolo probably has as much tri knowledge as anyone else on this forum. But you learn as little from him as anyone else on this forum. He knows that and enjoys whatever his role is here. I know little and teach little, so I have little room to complain about it. But you aren't alone in noticing it, that's for sure.

What the fuck is wrong with you people. Seriously can nobody here write a fucking statement with out someone acting like a little prick just caught cutting class. Grow up and start making claims with some writing to back it up. If you have time to read the post that do not complain when someone replies.

This whole fucking thread turned into a pissing question with nobody offering anything of real value.

I read your strawman reply to T-wrecks you just deleted Jaret. It is a strawman you are presenting and arguing (poorly), you should look up the definition.