I've been involved with importing and exporting electronic goods including
Rb and OCXO from the US for more years than I care to remember. Unless
things have been tightened up radically recently, all that was required on
most of these items is an End User Statement - i.e. a record of where the
good
Rick,
I would like one. Do you accept PayPal? Or let me have your address so I
can send you a
check.
Thanks,
Joe, K9HDE
>Due to the high level of interest, I may need to
>limit the oscillators to one per person. I will be
>getting the oscillators out of storage today and
>will try to make
Bill,
> You have a cannon aimed at 45 degrees into the sky, for
> maximum altitude. You fire the cannon, but the projectile
> falls back to Earth. So you increase the amount of gunpowder
> (propellant) which causes the projectile to fall to the Earth
> farther away. You keep increasing the pro
Arnold,
let us make one of the big experiments in physics and switch gravity
off. In the moment that we do so we see the satellite move away along a
straight line which is tangential to earth's surface. That is: Without
the presence of an force the satellite keeps its velocity AND its
direction as
Didier,
> I am in good company :-)
No, you are not, because "centripetal" forces have the opposite
direction of "centrifugal". In fact, your NASA statement is exactly what
I am claiming too: Gravity IS the centripetal force for the satellite's
motion and clearly a centripetal force is necessary t
Ulrich,
I am quite familiar with the cannon analogy. If I may use this analogy
too, please consider the following:
There must be a force balancing the force of gravity, otherwise the
satellite would not cease from accelerating under gravity alone.
Gravity exerts a force on the satellite which
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Didier Juges
> Gesendet: Montag, 28. Mai 2007 13:53
> An: time-nuts@febo.com
> Betreff: [time-nuts] FW: Pendulums & Atomic Clocks & Gravity
>
>
> Ulrich,
>
> I am quite familiar with the c
Didier,
let us consider the more easier case of an linear motion. Imagine an
body that can glide on an surface without any friction. Now you take a
finger of your hand and press it on one side of the body so that it
moves horizontally. Clearly your finger exercises an force on the body
that makes
I have also (in my mess)a manual of the 10514A mixer dated 1966.
I'm try to search and if you are interested I can send to you a pdf
copy.
Let me known.
Hi
Gianfranco IZ1ICI
-Messaggio originale-
Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Per
conto di Magnus Danielson
Inviato: domenic
Hi Rick.
I would be interested in one; I am in Canada. If all else fails I could
give you an address in the US where I can fetch it.
Regards.
Mark.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rick Karlquist
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:42 PM
To:
Ulrich,
Your comparison with the linear motion is not valid. While you push the
body, it accelerates. The energy spent giving the body increased speed
(due to the excess force applied to the body while there is no counter
force) is stored in kinetic energy. Once you stop pushing, the body
moves st
Didier,
> Since you know a lot more about this than I do, I will accept
> your statement that centrifugal forces (or more generally
> inertial forces) are fictitious, but only because you insist.
> As long as I can predict their effect and calculate their
> magnitude, that's all this engineer
-Original Message-
From: Ulrich Bangert
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 8:23 AM
To: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Pendulums & Atomic Clocks & Gravity
---%< snip ---
In case you do not believe take the next textbook and read it after.
---%<
Ulrich,
I think I am with you, but
let me see wether my simple understanding is correct:
Assuming a object without sensitivity to gravity flying with a
certain (high) speed across space approaching planet terra.
The path of this object would be obviously straight as a line
(as long we are not
> Hi All,
I am still having difficulty getting my head around the gravity point.
Now I accept, in principle, that due to relativity an intense
gravity field will slow a clock.
My problem is visualising where you will find this field.
At the centre of this planet gravity (from the planet) is zer
Ulrich Bangert wrote:
> Didier,
>
>
>> Since you know a lot more about this than I do, I will accept
>> your statement that centrifugal forces (or more generally
>> inertial forces) are fictitious, but only because you insist.
>> As long as I can predict their effect and calculate their
>>
Ulrich, Didier
Talking about forces, gravitational fields etc makes no physical sense
if the observer's reference frame isn't specified.
For an observer in/on a satellite orbiting about the Earth with their
reference frame fixed with respect to the satellite.
There is no gravitational field, wha
Neville Michie wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
> I am still having difficulty getting my head around the gravity point.
> Now I accept, in principle, that due to relativity an intense
> gravity field will slow a clock.
> My problem is visualising where you will find this field.
> At the centre of this
18 matches
Mail list logo
