[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)
-
To: tesla@pupman.com
-
Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)
-
From: Richard Hull <hullr@whitlock.com>
-
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 13:03:40 -0800
-
Subscriber: hullr@whitlock.com Thu Jan 2 22:37:45 1997
Tesla List wrote:
>
> Subscriber: ed@alumni.caltech.edu Sat Dec 21 15:33:26 1996
> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:31:13 -0800 (PST)
> From: "Edward V. Phillips" <ed@alumni.caltech.edu>
> To: tesla@pupman.com
> Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)
>
> Richard:
> "Again, verified by the old mechanical
> (pondermotive) 300 year old instruments."
> Second time you've referred to pondermotive! First
> time I've ever heard the term. Please explain....
> Ed Phillips
Ed,
Just getting around to the mulitple hundreds of messages accumulated
while I was gone.
Pondermotive is a very old term. (newtonian dynamics) I have picked up
on it from Dr. Peter Graneau. It is quite simple actually. It means
literally a ponderable-motive-force. This means it is macroscopic and
not some interatom or inter-molecular related force, but a rather
signifcant force capable of doing real work in the real world due to a
single causitive agent. An example would be, pushing a mass about which
can be viewed with the unaided eye, such as found in a large magnetic or
electrostatic force. Whimpy forces found in nature, while real, can
never be considered pondermotive. They remain unusable in
macroscopic wheelwork, if you will.
Richard Hull, TCBOR