"Rofl about the part where you say you are uncorrectable."
Yet another strawman? I said that you cannot correct something unless it is in error. That's a statement of fact, not a boast of personal infallibility. Whenever somebody corrects me (accurately) I'm more than willing to hold my hand up. Who would want to base a study of possibility on bogus data? It would be simply deranged.
"To apply physics of rigid bodies, which is for all practical purpose what a arm is, to piano you must use that which is rigid."
You missed the bit where I said I don't want to apply physics of rigid bodies to the arm as a whole, or use my arm that way? The bones are rigid anyway. We do not control that variable. So what on earth is that point supposed to imply, in practise? What is the relevance of stressing that the bones within a structure are rigid beyond control when the structure is not? Not one joint needs to be rigid, as long as they are moving in a way that positively aids acceleration, rather than collapsing in a way that hinders it.
"In your scenario you didn't use both, and I venture to say the legs would do a better job by themselves than arms would by themselves. Being that the strongest muscles in the body are in the legs. "
Active input of energy from the legs or not, a straightened and rigid arm is a poorer way to accelerate the pram than an arm that activates into motion. Buy a pram and see, if you don't trust the mechanics.
"Calculating *work* is dependant on acceleration.
Why did I say that? Well I have no idea, besides the fact that if I dont it appears to you that I submitted to your flawed logic."
I have to point out yet again that I was referring to YOUR calculations? How was I even supposed to calculate the work done when YOU presented an instantaneous velocity without reference to the time it took to reach it? Stop trying to being a pedant. If you argue based on emotions rather than out of interest in the topic, you'll just end up making more blunders.
I have not the slightest interest in the net work done anyway- as long as I'm not wasting too high a percentage on impacting the keybed. When's the last time you felt out of the breath or in dire need of a lucozade from piano playing? If I worried about expending another calorie or two, I wouldn't go to the gym. If there's not a large amount of energy landing hard in the keybeds, I don't give a damn. Even if your calculation about four times the kinetic energy had not been reached by both leaving out a collision and misusing an equation, that would be fine by me. I don't count calories when I play the piano.
PS. I look forward to being "corrected" for referencing calories instead of Joules- despite the fact that both are valid measurements of energy.