Re: Air resistance

[LUDWIK KOWALSKI <KOWALSKIL@alpha.montclair.edu>]

John wrote:

> Is the problem that you don't understand what I have been saying or is 
> it that you find errors in my analysis?  I can't help but be a little
> frustrated that, despite the time I spent analyzing your data, informing
> you and the list (which probably long ago lost interest in this thread!)
> of my results and how they were obtained, and explaining the problems with
> your analysis method, I have received no indication that you have listened
> to a word I've said.  

There are two issues here, one general and one subject-related. 

1) It is true that a Phys-L thread should not degeneraten into a dialogue.
   If you think that a thread is intersting please indicate so, perhaps
   in a form of a short sentence (comment, question, opinion, etc.). There
   is no point of arguing a subject when nobody cares. From now on I will
   assume that a thread with six consecutive meassages from two autors is
   virtually dead.

2) I am too busy now to deal with the topic but I will definitely answer
   to two messages received today; especially if there are further 
   indications of interest. I just found an empirical formula for the
   air resistance of a sphere. The values calculated from this textbook 
   formula are rather close to those we measured. For example, 0.07 N at 
   v=2.5 m/s (instead of 0.09) and 0.23 N at v=4.5 m/s (instead of 0.27).

   No John, I am not asking for a vote. We need more data and more ideas.
   Will write more later. No Vern, I have no idea how averaging is done
   inside of Mac Motion. Can somebody help us on this?
                                                         Ludwik Kowalski