In article ,
Morgans wrote:


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


Check out the math. If we're talking about kinetic energy and conservation
of momentum, more will be transferred to the struck object in an elastic
collision, where the striking object by definition is free to rebound and
there is no permanent deformation of either object. Of course, most of
the time in woodworking, we're NOT talking about an elastic collision and
it's not what we want either.


--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry W. - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org