Still waiting for the conservation of momentum derivation. My husband,
also trained as an engineer, casually remarked he didn't think you
could get from Newton's First Law to the that confirms my memory,
but we are both willing to have that belief rebutted.

He also pointed out that how a CFI might explain how a VOR works would
not satisfy an engineer. For that matter, the physics of flight as
explained to a student pilot would not satisfy someone who might be
interested in designing, as opposed to flying, an airplane, but I
don't think the manuals you are looking at are in error. I would point
out that each field has its own language, and you denying the
conventions used in aviation -- drag, lift and so on -- demonstrates
an unbecoming trait for a student, and even a worse one for an
employee. You may want to rething that attitude if you use it in real
life.






On Oct 3, 11:14 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:38 pm, Tina wrote:

"We" are not in need of getting to the bottom of this. Most of us have
been there and done that.This particular writer, if she chooses to
analyse physics problems, tends to use the Newtonion approximations as
first principles. The good news is my profession doesn't demand those
skills often. I would, however, be interested, as I mentioned earlier,
how you derive conservation of mV from Newton's force/acceleration
relationship. I think you made that claim earlier in this thread.

Hmm...I was afraid you would say that.

A non-hand-waving explanation would too close to the quantum, and
so...it's a bit much to discuss, at least right now. I've posted more
messages in this thread in small period of time than I have ever for
any other topic, in the history of using USENET, or...as one might
say, dN/dt 0, where N is number of messages.

-Le Chaud Lapin-