Re: [Phys-l] question about coupled oscillators

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

At 12:19 PM 11/4/2006,  Jack, you wrote:

> Hi all-
>         I'm not sure what Brian means by "common mounting board".  Two
> pendula with coupled mounting points can be chaotic with an attractor at
> pi phase difference (I claim no expertise on this topic), but if the
> mounting points are each rigid the statement would not be true.
>         As far as uncoupled women are concerned, better we not go there on
> this list.
>                                 Regards,
>                                         Jack

[Jack to Chuck]
The argument is erroneous. ....
> >>>                             Jack

[Jack to  T Karim]
The problem of 2 coupled oscillators can be worked out easily,
TKarim's example is OK (though the conclusion is erroneous).

[Jack to me]
Hi all,
        I totally don't understand Brian's posting.  If by "Jacobi
Matrix", Brian means the matrix from which a Jacobian determinant is
calculated, I made no mention of such either explicity or implicitly.
   The succeeding sentences strike me as pure gibberish.


To summarize then:
Jack (in somewhat uncertain humor) is unsure of my meaning, in places.
     Jack asserts Chuck's error at some point.
           Jack acknowledges Karim's argument, though his conclusion is
erroneous he feels.
                 Jack is uncomfortable  with the meaning of "Jacobi Matrix",
 and assures us he doesn't use the term.
                          He feels I am uttering pure gibberish  in places.

Yes, I think that's about it.

And I thought I was rising suitably to Jack's humor!

Ah, the jurisprudential physicist's mind - how hard to capture
and reflect its coruscations in words!
 For me, it's the mixture of the judgmental assertions, the
mathematical physics   and the humor that is such an interesting
mix, all the same.


Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!