wrote

You just contradicted yourself. There is *not* a greater transfer of
energy if the hammer rebounds. The energy required for the rebound is
not imparted to the object, which is sorta the purpose of striking it
in the first place.

What he said. Where did the energy for the mallet come from to make it
reverse direction. From the object being struck not soaking up all the
energy. Been saying that all along.

This horse is about dead, isn't it?
--
Jim in NC


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com