The discussion revolves around the energy output of an engine and whether it remains constant under varying conditions. Participants explore the relationship between power, torque, and RPM, as well as the implications of pressing the gas pedal on power output. The conversation also touches on the energy expenditure of human activities like running versus walking, considering factors such as gravity and resistive forces.
Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the energy output of an engine is constant, with multiple competing views on how power output changes with different conditions. The discussion on human energy expenditure also remains unresolved, with differing opinions on the factors influencing energy use in running versus walking.
Participants express uncertainty regarding the definitions of work and power, particularly in simplified scenarios. There are also unresolved questions about the impact of resistive forces on energy expenditure in both engines and human activities.
I think the qualifier also implied only losses internal to the engine, so it is true at constant speed as well -- the real world application being what I described above.A.T. said:... to accelerate from zero to a certain speed assuming the same mass.
Some of the losses are a fixed function of size, not a fraction of output. So for identical cars and driving, the smaller engine will essentially always produce better fuel efficiency.Thom_Silva said:So is theoretically possible to have a very powerfull car (a super car for example), that can use less fuel to mantain a given speed than a less powerful car. If that is true, that's an interesting realization. I wonder why doesn't that happen more frequently, if it happens at all.