You nailed it.And just after that, you contradicted yourself, because you have posted a zillion times, wasting your precious time, with someone CLEARLY not interested in listening.Can this thread please be closed before Meberbs loses more of his time (because he feels compelled to correct Espocar's nonsense) for no good reason at all?

Quote from: esposcar on 03/12/2019 06:24 pmYou have not understood anything. Its acellerated and then what happens after acceleration, what comes?? constant speed. I find here a big lack of knowledges about basic things. Understand the device and the make the critic, I would suggest you. The clue of the system is the transfer. And maths are on the pics, so you did not red anything. By the way, what empirical or mathematical argument have your colegge given? no one, just insisting like a mantra one and another time, that it violates a device like that Newton law and is unable to show me why notYou keep using the word "math", & don't think we share a common definition. Your step 1 has a semblance of a free body diagram with static forces displayed at time T=+0, but there is a huge gap to step 2 & 3. Show me your math of how you get to 100 m/s instantaneously? Tell me mathematically what is happening in that bendy pipe of your diagram that allows it move with the system to get to 100m/s. Show me your math for the work done by the piston imparting momentum into the fluid flow out of the cylinder and into the bendy pipe. Please do so in vector form for x/y/z components of the fluid flow. Show me that & I'll retract my math criticisms. I may have slept through my college history class when they taught me about the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor, but I was pretty awake through my engineering calculus/differential equations, statics, dynamics, fluid dynamics, materials, & thermodynamics that I think I still recognize "math" when I see it. Your steps 1-3 do not contain consequential math.

You have not understood anything. Its acellerated and then what happens after acceleration, what comes?? constant speed. I find here a big lack of knowledges about basic things. Understand the device and the make the critic, I would suggest you. The clue of the system is the transfer. And maths are on the pics, so you did not red anything. By the way, what empirical or mathematical argument have your colegge given? no one, just insisting like a mantra one and another time, that it violates a device like that Newton law and is unable to show me why not