Transcribe
Translate
En Garde, whole no. 7, September 1943
Page 8
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
page 8. On the other hand, celestial mechanics is an exact science. There cannot be a second satellite, hiding eternally behind the moon, hence I have never used that or any similar locale. As to the mathematics of inertialessness, I can say only that neither [Bigelow?] of Michigan, who (as far as I know) first propounded the thing, nor Van Orstrand of Tech (than whom there are few whomer in math) could prove the idea impossible. Second point is also easy. There was no loss in mass, as was brought out carefully in the story. Energy was taken in on receptor screens, converted into matter, and ejected---the ejection furnishing the drive, strictly a la Newton. Third point: perhaps you have something there, since I very specifically and carefully refrained at any time from saying either that gravity did or did not affect inertialess matter. Frankly, I don't know---couldn't figure it out. Also, I didn't want to commit myself, as I might want to use it the other way if I did. Also, there was enough stuff that had to be explained as it was, without burdening the story with stuff that didn't. But, assuming that gravity does not affect inertialess matter (I still am not saying that it does or does not, remember) what happens to the law of conservation of energy? Kinetic energy only, then, and everything is OK. But I am not at all sure that it is necessary to duck the issue that way. "Energy of Position" is purely relative, and you are taking it with reference to some nearby planet, such as earth. Suppose you figure it from the absolute center of mass of the entire macrocosmic Universe---see how your figure changes? Also, what happens to the potential energy of a tightly-wound spring, said spring destroyed by fusing with a torch while in the wound condition? It fuses easier? Or does it? The connection between the two concepts is not apparent at first glance, but it is there. Cordially yours, [Edward E. Smith?] andlittlepeterparemeciumwriggledhislittleciliaandswamaroundandaround SPECIAL TO DAW You did a fine job on the Pocketbook of Stf. To show our appreciation, and as a gesture of support, we bought a dozen copies. Since then we've discovered they make an excellent sampler to loan or give anyone evincing an interest in stf. People seem to be more receptive to stf. put up in that form than they are to a copy of one of the magazines. Also, though the cost is the same, with the Pocketbook you are making a gift of a book, not just an old magazine, and it is far more appreciated, and therefore more liable to actually be read. We for a couple would like to see more stf. and fantasy put up in that form. So we are willing to do more than our share to make the first one successful. Wonder how many other fans feel the same?
Saving...
prev
next
page 8. On the other hand, celestial mechanics is an exact science. There cannot be a second satellite, hiding eternally behind the moon, hence I have never used that or any similar locale. As to the mathematics of inertialessness, I can say only that neither [Bigelow?] of Michigan, who (as far as I know) first propounded the thing, nor Van Orstrand of Tech (than whom there are few whomer in math) could prove the idea impossible. Second point is also easy. There was no loss in mass, as was brought out carefully in the story. Energy was taken in on receptor screens, converted into matter, and ejected---the ejection furnishing the drive, strictly a la Newton. Third point: perhaps you have something there, since I very specifically and carefully refrained at any time from saying either that gravity did or did not affect inertialess matter. Frankly, I don't know---couldn't figure it out. Also, I didn't want to commit myself, as I might want to use it the other way if I did. Also, there was enough stuff that had to be explained as it was, without burdening the story with stuff that didn't. But, assuming that gravity does not affect inertialess matter (I still am not saying that it does or does not, remember) what happens to the law of conservation of energy? Kinetic energy only, then, and everything is OK. But I am not at all sure that it is necessary to duck the issue that way. "Energy of Position" is purely relative, and you are taking it with reference to some nearby planet, such as earth. Suppose you figure it from the absolute center of mass of the entire macrocosmic Universe---see how your figure changes? Also, what happens to the potential energy of a tightly-wound spring, said spring destroyed by fusing with a torch while in the wound condition? It fuses easier? Or does it? The connection between the two concepts is not apparent at first glance, but it is there. Cordially yours, [Edward E. Smith?] andlittlepeterparemeciumwriggledhislittleciliaandswamaroundandaround SPECIAL TO DAW You did a fine job on the Pocketbook of Stf. To show our appreciation, and as a gesture of support, we bought a dozen copies. Since then we've discovered they make an excellent sampler to loan or give anyone evincing an interest in stf. People seem to be more receptive to stf. put up in that form than they are to a copy of one of the magazines. Also, though the cost is the same, with the Pocketbook you are making a gift of a book, not just an old magazine, and it is far more appreciated, and therefore more liable to actually be read. We for a couple would like to see more stf. and fantasy put up in that form. So we are willing to do more than our share to make the first one successful. Wonder how many other fans feel the same?
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
