Golly, did I state anything that's wrong or untrue?james kelly wrote:YOU have just proven yourself to be an idiot. congratulations. and good bye all!
![Image](http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/Jim_Mich.gif)
Moderator: scott
Golly, did I state anything that's wrong or untrue?james kelly wrote:YOU have just proven yourself to be an idiot. congratulations. and good bye all!
I hope this was not meant to include me, the goodbye I mean; I have been nothing but help itself to my namesake, albeit in minor ways, admittedly.james kelly wrote:YOU have just proven yourself to be an idiot. congratulations. and good bye all!
Well, despite my best half efforts, everyone would seem to be remaining "true to form" and doing business as-usual . . . myself excluded, for I am much, much nicer as well as more improved now; ask the favorite denizen of Tanzania!Fletcher wrote:]At least he remains true to form.
Michael, I'm pleased someone can see there maybe a way of lifting more than dropping as this is the basis of my research, I believe it is possible.
andWishing you good luck Clarkie. Even though I don't at this time think it is possible
1712 is right sevich, you cannot make 1.0 lift 1.5 the same distance 1.0 falls - unless the 1.0 is travelling at a faster velocity. To get that 1.0 to travel to that faster velocity requires an energy input that is slightly greater than the energy required to lift the 1.5 to a given distance