🚀 go-pugleaf

vktamhane12@rediffmail.com (V.K.Tamhane) wrote in message news:<9d62a326.0407170443.5990dad7@posting.google.com>...
> selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0407161931.376c92f0@posting.google.com>...
> > "Spaceman" <Spaceman@realspaceman.com> wrote in message news:<VLZIc.65325$JR4.14174@attbi_s54>...
> > > >time-variable
> > > 
> > > <LOL>
> > > like rubber rulers would make
> > > length variables for the same object!
> > > <LOL>
> > > 
> > > Too funny!
> > > Time variable!
> > > <ROFLOL>
> > > You forgot what time was "invented for" huh?
> > > Tis very sad that physics loses so much when
> > > even the measurement standards are now "variables"
> > > 
> > > Next,
> > > You will find out the inch has more than one length I suppose!
> > > :)
> > 
> > Are not you tired to snip words from context? Maybe, it would be
> > better to understand the meaning of written? ;-)
> > 
> > Sergey
> 
>    Sergey, no body has understood the meaning. I doubt if anybody had
> read it carefully.
>    You are right and you have proved it. The common assumption that
> time dependent flux is always the cause of the emf is wrong. The
> concept of flux linkages and change in it during motion is wrong. We
> get equivalence only if the flux is homogeneous. You have proved that
> it is not the same thing if the flux changes with distance. Your
> equation 10 cannot be faulted. Derivation is correct.
>    There is a minor slip before the statement of eq.10. Instead of
> db*h you have written dh*b. Please correct it.

And?... ;-)

Sergey