Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper

Liste des GroupesRevenir à physics 
Sujet : Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper
De : jimp (at) *nospam* gonzo.specsol.net (Jim Pennino)
Groupes : sci.physics
Date : 09. Dec 2024, 16:03:57
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <rfdj2l-c8492.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : tin/2.6.2-20220130 ("Convalmore") (Linux/5.15.0-126-lowlatency (x86_64))
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Woof-woof, Arindam allowed me to post the background info. about rail
guns in his 2013 seminal paper on the rail gun.
 
 
 
Arindam Banerjee and Dr. P J Radcliffe
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
 
 
 
 
Abstract—Recent experimental work on model rail guns shows very little
recoil upon the rails for the static case, where the armature or
projectile does not move.

Of course there is no recoil in this case because recoil requires *MOTION*
as in Newton's laws of *MOTION*, crackpot.

It is clear you don't have a clue what Newton's laws mean, crackpot.

<snip remaining babble all based on ignorant nonsense>



Date Sujet#  Auteur
6 Dec 24 * Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper35David Canzi
6 Dec 24 +* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper3Jim Pennino
7 Dec 24 i`* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper2bertietaylor
7 Dec 24 i `- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Jim Pennino
7 Dec 24 +* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper20Bertietaylor
7 Dec 24 i+- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Jim Pennino
8 Dec 24 i+* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper12David Canzi
9 Dec 24 ii+* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper10Bertietaylor
9 Dec 24 iii+* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper5Jim Pennino
9 Dec 24 iiii`* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper4bertietaylor
9 Dec 24 iiii `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper3Jim Pennino
10 Dec 24 iiii  `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper2Bertietaylor
10 Dec 24 iiii   `- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Jim Pennino
12 Dec 24 iii`* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper4David Canzi
12 Dec 24 iii `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper3Bertietaylor
12 Dec 24 iii  +- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Bertietaylor
12 Dec 24 iii  `- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Bertietaylor
9 Dec 24 ii`- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1bertietaylor
9 Dec 24 i`* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper6bertietaylor
9 Dec 24 i `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper5Jim Pennino
10 Dec 24 i  `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper4Bertietaylor
10 Dec 24 i   `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper3Jim Pennino
11 Dec 24 i    `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper2Bertietaylor
11 Dec 24 i     `- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Jim Pennino
7 Dec 24 +* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper4Bertietaylor
7 Dec 24 i`* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper3Jim Pennino
7 Dec 24 i `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper2Bertietaylor
7 Dec 24 i  `- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Jim Pennino
7 Dec 24 +* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper4bertietaylor
7 Dec 24 i`* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper3Jim Pennino
7 Dec 24 i `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper2Bertietaylor
7 Dec 24 i  `- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Jim Pennino
9 Dec 24 +- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Bertietaylor
14 Dec 24 `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper2bertietaylor
18 Dec07:53  `- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Bertietaylor

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal