We've talked about levers before, and today we're going to talk about the power arm. Some people say that this is not simple, the power arm is on the lever. That's right, the power arm does have a lot to do with leverage. But is the power arm really on the lever? We know that if the lever is used horizontally to pry the object, it is impossible for the object to be pried up. Therefore, the lever must have a certain angle with the horizontal plane, and the larger the angle, the greater the power.

Okay, that's all I have to say. Next, let's use our imagination! Mizukawa rice, or him.

I think the power arm is the area from the fulcrum to the tail of the lever. The reason is that this part is the reason for the rotation of the lever.

Duenias, you're not right. Not to the tail, but to another fulcrum. What looks like a fulcrum with a spoon is actually two fulcrums. I think the power arm is the area between the two fulcrums. You may not feel it with a spoon, so I'll use an iron pestle as an example. You can appreciate this when you pry an animal with an iron pestle. Of course, it is not that the two fulcrums are as far away as possible. The farther the fulcrum, the higher the breaking stress of the lever is required. Of course, iron tools do not break easily, but they are prone to bending.

Margarita, you're not entirely right. You can indeed see two fulcrums in a situation. Actually, it should be said that there are two branches. The case of the bending of the lever you are talking about exists, which is even more intriguing in the use of the spoon. Originally, the bending stress of the spoon was very small, but the support surface held the spoon. As a result, the bending stress of the spoon increases considerably. In practice, the bending of the spoon is greatly relieved. There are also many fulcrums in the support surface, and each fulcrum corresponds to a power arm.

Haven't you heard of the synthesis of force? Since there are so many fulcrums, why can't they be synthesized? Doesn't it become a fulcrum when synthesized?

Margarita, where is the fulcrum of this synthesis? Still on leverage? I don't think it's in leverage.

What, the pivot is on leverage? What you're saying is incredible. If the fulcrum is not on the lever, is it the power that is produced in the air? Indecision, quantum mechanics. I think you, like the people of quantum mechanics, are unacceptable. Didn't you learn force synthesis in high school? Although I can't be sure where the fulcrum of synthesis is, the fulcrum of synthesis must be certain in leverage. For example, can you pry up an object by exerting force outside the lever? It is very implicit, so the fulcrum of synthesis can only be on the lever. Margarita gushed.

I didn't say so. The fulcrum of synthesis is that it cannot have the same mechanical effect as other movements. You might say that since it is synthetic, there must be a motion that has the same mechanical effect as it. But is that really the case? I don't think so. In mathematics, irrational numbers cannot be turned into fractions. This means that yin is not a daily rule, and it is absolutely universal. Newton's classical mechanics, for example, could not explain the motion of microscopic particles. Who says there isn't an exception? The six sons of the wind seem to be full of confidence.

Mizukawa said: Since it is a discussion, there should be different voices. What happens when synthesized is a question worth pondering. I hope that everyone will think hard and say things that are close to the truth. It has been said that physics is the science of experiments. That's true. However, physics also needs theory. Compared with experimental physics, the development of theoretical physics has been relatively slow. However, I believe that one day theoretical physics can be as highly abstract as mathematics.

Well, good. Go where you want to go. Remember, though, to come back on time.