On 04/10/2010 20:12, dennis@home wrote:


"Clive George" wrote in message
...
On 04/10/2010 19:16, dennis@home wrote:


"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 04/10/2010 14:04, dennis@home wrote:

I've started to lead you through an explanation, but you refused to
address it, complaining about "deflection". Go back to it and
actually
look at it, then reply here.

You are wrong, there I have said what I think of your explanation.

Which bit of what I said is wrong? I hadn't even got as far as dealing
with the wind.

I had my little car with a treadmill. Tell me what was wrong with the
mechanics/physics of that.

Sorry but you and rick are just too stupid to bother with.

We've offered to help you understand, but you won't even try. Are you
scared you might learn something?

You have repeatedly failed to answer the energy question and used
diversionary tactics, are you scared others will learn something?

Um, I was there first.

Short answer : No, you don't need to provide the energy input you claim.

Longer answer : Thinking about the energy in the way you're doing will
confuse things. I will admit I'm not happy about dealing with the fluid
flows and energy going into them, and can't easily explain why your
analysis is wrong, which is why I prefer to deal with forces and then
add distance later. When you do that you discover your analysis must be
wrong.

So, are you prepared to go with the forces?