scholarly journals Note on the mechanical equivalent of light

1866 ◽  
Vol s2-41 (122) ◽  
pp. 214-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. G. Farmer
Author(s):  
D E Welcome ◽  
K Krajnak ◽  
M L Kashon ◽  
R G Dong

The objectives of this study are to examine the fundamental characteristics of the biodynamic responses of a rat tail to vibration and to compare them with those of human fingers. Vibration transmission through tails exposed to three vibration magnitudes (1 g, 5 g, and 10 g r.m.s.) at six frequencies (32 Hz, 63 Hz, 125 Hz, 160 Hz, 250 Hz, and 500 Hz) was measured using a laser vibrometer. A mechanical-equivalent model of the tail was established on the basis of the transmissibility data, which was used to estimate the biodynamic deformation and vibration power absorption at several representative locations on the tail. They were compared with those derived from a mechanical-equivalent model of human fingers reported in the literature. This study found that, similar to human fingers, the biodynamic responses of the rat tail depends on the vibration magnitude, frequency, and measurement location. With the restraint method used in this study, the natural frequency of the rat tail is in the range 161–368 Hz, which is mostly within the general range of human finger resonant frequencies (100–350 Hz). However, the damping ratios of the rat tail at the unconstrained locations are from 0.094 to 0.394, which are lower than those of human fingers (0.708–0.725). Whereas the biodynamic responses of human fingers at frequencies lower than 100 Hz could be significantly influenced by the biodynamics of the entire hand—arm system, the rat tail biodynamic responses can be considered independent of the rat body in the frequency range used in this study. Based on these findings it is concluded that, although there are some differences between the frequency dependences of the biodynamic responses of the rat tail and human fingers, the rat tail model can provide a practical and reasonable approach to examine the relationships between the biodynamic and biological responses at midrange to high frequencies, and to understand the mechanisms underlying vibration-induced finger disorders.


1982 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-315
Author(s):  
W. Chan ◽  
V. Kalff ◽  
M. A. Rabinovitch ◽  
M. Dick ◽  
J. H. Thrall ◽  
...  

The question raised by Professor Simon on the mechanism by which the work done against the frictional resistance is transformed into heat perhaps requires a more fundamental explanation than can be deduced from frictional experiments alone. I t is true that free energy is required for the formation of a new surface when the intermetallic junctions are ruptured, and this in itself does not produce an appreciable temperature rise. With plastic solids (as distinct from liquids), however, most of the work is required to deform the metal around the junctions. As Taylor & Quinney (1937) have shown at least 90% of the work of deformation is liberated as heat and less than 10 % remains as potential energy in the deformed metal, but if the metal is already heavily deformed the proportion of potential energy retained in the metal is negligibly small. Some of the early determinations of the mechanical equivalent of heat are of course based on the assumption that all the frictional work appears as heat. I would like to ask Dr A. J. W. Moore to comment further on this.


1850 ◽  
Vol 140 ◽  
pp. 61-82 ◽  

“Heat is a very brisk agitation of the insensible parts of the object, which produces in us that sensation from whence we denominate the object hot; so what in our sensation is heat , in the object is nothing but motion .”—Locke. “The force of a moving body is proportional to the square of its velocity, or to the height to which it would rise against gravity.”— Leibnitz.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document