Re: Fw: Re: Fw: Hewitt blew it again

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>]

> Leigh doesn't realize that each link of a chain is like a rigid falling
> pole

Leigh considered this. An ideal chain has links of zero length. A
one link-length difference would be the smallest significant result.
If you will note I said that the construct was an ideal chain.

I can attack such problems analytically. See, for example, T. McGeer
and L.H. Palmer, "Wobbling, Toppling and Forces of Contact", American
Journal of Physics 57, 1089-1098 (1989). That one was refereed.

> ... if the CG of a link accelerates at g, the end should accelerate >g

The CG of a link won't accelerate at g if there is a nongravitational
force acting upward on it. If there is no nongravitational force
acting upward on it it will have no effect on other links.

If one's premise is false one must reconstriuct one's argument.

> ... he
> should read Kagan's article in TPT ... and he'd disagree with that one
> too ...

I have students to teach and experiments to do. I have to choose my
activities based upon a finite time available. Reading an article
cited by a source of dubious taste may not make the cut.

> Ah, the controversy of good physics. Wonderful!

I have a 2.3 meter chain and a place to drop over four meters. Next
week I'll try to do it.

Leigh