Re: There's work, and then there's work

[David Rutherford <drutherford@SOFTCOM.NET>]

Hugh Haskell wrote:
> I'm probably making a big mistake jumping in here, but this rant is
> so over the top that it must be responded to even if the response is
> ignored. It would appear, David, that you have not the least
> understanding of the concept of energy. Energy, being a scalar
> quantity does not have "components," although it is possible to
> associate the energy that arises due to any given component of the
> object's velocity. But the most important aspect of this is that the
> path of an electron through a wire, or a resistor is not a straight
> line but a more or less "biased random walk" involving lots of
> bouncing around between the various atoms of the wire or resistor.

[snip]

I give up! It's obvious that none of you has listened to a thing I've
said. Therefore, a note will be sent to your parents, informing them
that you have all failed my course, and suggesting that your allowances
be reduced accordingly.

Class dismissed!

--
Dave Rutherford
"New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf

Applications:
"4/3 Problem Resolution"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf
"Action-reaction Paradox Resolution"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf
"Energy Density Correction"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf
"Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf