[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: The actual running Archie paper...

--Original Message--From: Bill Adlam : Monday, May 10, 1999 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: The actual running Archie paper...

>John V Jackson replied to James Cunningham:
>> >They're using the mathematical description of work.  No vertical
>> movement,
>> no
>> >vertical work.  That doesn't mean no energy has been expended.
>> I was aware of that, though isn't it a "physic"-al description?
>> Since work is force times speed...
>Work is the amount of energy changed from one form to another (i.e.
>expended).  It doesn't have a direction.  When an object moves, work
>is equal to force times distance.

I'm a little disappointed you didn't realise I meant to say: power = force *
speed.  I never said it had a direction.

Hey - to save you chaps a lot of time in trying to pick silly holes in my
arguments here, this is all "O" level physics, and I've got "S" level.  It
may not be much but I do know the basics and you'll never disprove that!

Just to remind us of what this was all about, we are now agreed, I think,
that the Burgers & Chiappe paper were completely wrong in their suggestion
that thrust increased with speed.  I tried to give you a handy illustration,
but I guess you didn't want to know.