Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper

Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 14:34:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
 

Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 15:03:57 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>

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.

>
Not so, ridiculous fool. Motion relates to velocity and momentum whereas
recoil is a force measured by mass and acceleration.

>
And acceleration is the first derivative of velocity, crackpot!

 
Wow penisnino you have heard about derivatives but have no clue about
what they mean.

I know very well what they mean while you obviously don't when you
spout utter nonsense such as static recoil, crackpot.