Re: Physics According to HIT

[Guest guest]

by Matt Brzycki

<<To illustrate the effects of momentum on muscular tension, imagine that

you

pushed a 100 pound cart a distance of 50 yards at a deliberate, steady pace.

In this instance, you maintained a constant tension on your muscles for the

entire 50 yards. Now, suppose that you were to push the same cart another 50

yards. This time, however, you accelerated your pace to the point where you

were running as fast as possible. If you were to stop pushing the cart after

35 yards, the cart would continue to move by itself because you gave it

momentum. So, your muscles had resistance for the first 35 yards . . . but

not for the final 15 yards. The same effect occurs in the weight room. When

weights are lifted explosively, there is tension on the muscles for the

initial part of the movement . . . but not for the last part. In effect, the

requirement for muscular force is lessened and the potential strength gains

are reduced accordingly.>>

This guy's so dumb he can't even see that the second example - pushing the

cart explosively - is far and away the more athletic performance.

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff wrote:

< 5. It is incorrect to state that the Olympic lifter does not apply

continued force throughout the Olympic lifts. This reveals a serious lack of

understanding of the mechanics of the Olympic lifts. As discussed

above, the ever-present force of gravity is acting on the bar tending to slow

it down and the lifter applies varying degrees of force at every different

stage of the movement in response to proprioceptive feedback from various

parts of the body in an attempt to ensure that there is adequate force present

to move the bar as high as possible.

EMGs have frequently been taken during all of the lifts and show

that considerable activity of many muscle groups occurs throughout the

lifting (and jerking) movement (see Vorobyev " Textbook on Weightlifting

1978, for example). Lifters do not depend on a single ballistic pull or

thrust to move a load overhead; they rely on a combination of momentum and

continued application of muscular force (or in other words, on a combination

of kinetic and potential elastic energy).

6. Brzycki's comments suggest that the use of ballistic action is

inherently dangerous and inefficient. If he read some of the outstanding

early texts by scientists such as McNeil , he might learn that the use

of ballistic actions actually enhances the efficiency and safety of animal

motion. What can be dangerous is the inappropriate application of forces and

the

production of inappropriate motor patterns. What also needs to be

pointed out that no research has ever shown that ballistic or rapid

movements are any more likely to cause injury than slower or static actions. In

fact, some of the most debilitating injury or dysfunction involves prolonged

sitting without movement. Very serious muscle ruptures have also taken

place during intense isometric and very slow loaded movements.

7. Bryzcki states that " These high forces are created at the point

of explosion " . This is correct, but the production of these forces is

not in the form of a " step function " in which the force starts from zero

and immediately reaches a peak value. Force is always developed

according to a specific ramping or building up pattern. The ability of the

body

to produce force rapidly is controlled by proprioceptive and cognitive

feedback processes which rarely allow the lifter to voluntarily produce

forces that will exceed the tensile limit strength of the soft tissues.>

Some confusion here. My background is in neurosciences so perhaps,

the terminology is different in exercise physiology but isn't the

term " ballistic " (vs " ramp " )movement by definition used to describe

voluntary movements that involve a largely preprogrammed command, in

which case it runs its full course without the possibility of current

modification (like that of a projected missile after the trigger has

been pulled).

I was under the impression that, " ballistic " movements

involve a brief initial contraction of the agonist muscles that is

rapidly followed by their complete relaxation before the peak of the

movement...as opposed to slower or even rapid " ramp " movements,

(where loop control from proprioceptive input is possible). From the

material I have looked at, EMG bursts for ballistic actions is

completed before the movement is completed. Furthermore, in ballistic

as opposed to ramp movements, when the anticipated load is

unexpectedly lightened, the ballistic (vs ramp)commands cannot be

reduced or cancelled, and the resulting displacement overshoots the

intended target.

Now I'm not sure which category many of the Olympic/power lifts would fall in,

but any imput would be appreciated? To be honest, I was under the impression

that given enough velocity they would fall under the " ballistic " category. Is

this inaccurate?

Thanks,

Gus

(Full name, please!)

[Guest guest]

I've gotta tell you guys, I think Matt has a point. I don't subscribe to most

of HIT's methods because they lack scientific merit, and maybe the example

provided by Matt was a bit poor, but he's got a point, nevertheless.

Let's look at the clean and jerk. The Olympic record was set in 1996 by

Akakide Kakhiashvilis with a lift of 235.0 kg (518) in the 99kg class. During

the first part of the lift, you've got to get the bar from the ground to a

racked position across your delts and pecs. Now, for a 220 pound guy, the

deadlift world record (IPF) is over 800 pounds set by Ed Coan. Now Ed might

be a poor point of comparison since he's basically a freak, so let's just for

purposes of this argument say that a weightlifting world champion at 220

pounds would probably not have too hard a time deadlifting 700 pounds. But

nobody, irrespective of weightclass, has cleaned 700 pounds. Why? It's simply

too heavy. What to do? Decrease the weight. So for a world caliber 220-pound

weightlifter cleaning 500 pounds is a relatively common occurrence. Why?

Because 500 is light enough to explosively " deadlift " off the ground and keep

moving to be able to rack it. Indeed, that momentum is an intricate part of

the clean is evidenced in weightlifters seeking to " pull themselves under the

bar " post second pull. How could they do this if momentum wasn't part of the

lift? Clearly, once momentum is generated and the bodies' movement is

reversed (going from extension during the pull to flexion in an attempt to

pull under the weight and rack it), muscular action reverses as well where

there would appear to be less during the rack phase, since momentum was

generated and this extremely important component of the lift is taken

advantage of. So in that respect, Matt's got a point.

Moving on to the jerk, the lifter also generates momentum to complete the

lift, as can be clearly seen by the naked eye when watching this component of

the clean & jerk. Moreover, the generation of momentum is essentially a

requirement in weightlifting as a " pressout " will result in a " no lift. " So

again, Matt would seem to have a point.

Now, there's another way to look at this, namely from a muscle developmental

perspective. Hardly anyone could argue that when a muscle is exercised via

progressive resistance through a full range of motion this muscle will grow.

So let's look at the weightlifter's physique. Most of their development is

clearly in their lower bodies and erectors. I would state that this is the

case because most of the work through a full range of motion occurs there,

not to mention all of the assistance work they do for the snatch and c & j. But

if we look at their upper body development, the same simply doesn't hold true

and the muscular development there is a far cry from their lower body

development. But how can this be since both the snatch and C & J require the

bar to be lifted overhead. Wouldn't this require upper body muscular

involvement, particularly in the delts and tri's? Well, here, again, the only

answer can come from the momentum aspect in each lift. Though the joints move

through a full range of motion, the muscular contribution must be minimal,

hence the lack of development.

Other exercises that don't require momentum for completion, essentially

because they don't have several components to them as in the snatch and c & j,

do result in greater muscle activity and hence more development, and this is

essentially the point I believe Matt was trying to get across. Of course any

of the above shouldn't be interpreted as evidence to the relative worth, or

lack thereof, of the snatch, c & j, powerclean or any other exercise. As far as

I'm concerned, all lifts provide distinctive benefits and it's simply a

matter of whether these benefits match the athlete's goals.

Your thoughts?

Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/6/01 11:49:30 PM, Mcsiff@... writes:

<< In other words, as I noted in my original article, the Olympic lifts

involve

a combination of ballistic and non-ballistic action. If the load is light

enough to be projected upwards so that the arms simply follow the action,

then the action tends to be far more ballistic, but that is not the case in

Olympic weightlifting or powerlifting, where the loads are very heavy and the

initial momentum imparted by the first stage of the pull does not propel the

bar very far. That is why the lifter has to interact with the bar to push

the body beneath the load, according to Newton's Third Law ( " For every action

there is an equal and opposite reaction " ). >>

In reference to my earlier post on this subject, it seems to me that the

weightlifter's ability to rack the weight is limited by the weakest part of

the clean phase. This would seem to be what occurs at/after the second pull.

However, as quite accurately mentioned, the second pull also generates the

greatest speed, which would seem to indicate that a great deal of momentum

would be generated as well, particularly since the weight is substantially

less than what could be lifted during the first pull. I cannot see how you

can have one (speed) without the other (momentum), irrespective of load and

irrespective of how minimal momentum will actually be. Now, the best lifters

will attempt to PULL themselves under the bar, which would seem to also

result in additional upward forces being generated to the bar. However,

studies have shown a distinct drop in muscular activity during this phase

(Stone), which would obviously be necessary since the body changes direction.

However, it still would seem to remain true that the more explosive and quick

the bar moves out of the second pull, the more likely the lift will be

successful.

I'm wondering if we're just playing with semantics for the most part. Is

there anyone really suggesting that a max clean, jerk, or snatch can be

achieved without the components of speed and momentum? Could it be that some

visualize momentum as a situation where the lifter pulls like crazy and just

stands there as the bar flies up another foot and racks itself, as opposed to

a minute and bearly measurable mechanical advantage that can spell the

difference between success and failure?

Rebuttal?

Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

[Guest guest]

>Mel Siff wrote:

>That is why I pointed out that EMGs recorded from many muscle groups reveal

>that there is continued muscular activity throughout all of the Olympic

>lifts. I have scanned in a few images of the EMGs and biomechanical curves

>recorded during the Olympic lifts - go to the home page of the Supertraining

>group at:

Although EMG show, for example, biceps activity during VIth phase of jerk,

it is doubtful how much it contributes to the lift, analogously for the

other phases/muscles.

How much one can clean & jerk/snatch with slow, controlled and continuous

movement, for let's say 5 seconds? Difference between his PR and this

result could be attributed to 'initial momentum' part, roughly but

probably good enough for this purpose. Do you know actual numbers?

_______________________________________________________________

Kazimir Majorinc, dipl. ing. mathematics, prof. collaborator

Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Uni of Zagreb

Marulicev trg 19/III., HR-10000 Zagreb, p.o.box 163., Croatia

Tel.: 385-(0)1-48 28 298, Fax: 385-(0)1-48 29 958

mailto:kmajor@... http://public.srce.hr/~kmajor

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

M E R C Y O F C H A O S

[Guest guest]

Staley wrote:

> According to the standard definition for " work, " in both scenarios above, the

same amount of work was performed,

> as both instances

> involve displacing a 100 pound cart 50 yards. However, I prefer the latter

scenario (where the cart of

> accelerated), since I believe the

> cart would reach the 50 yard line faster. This means that the accelerated cart

pusher did the same amount of work

> as the HIT

> pusher, but in LESS time. I.e., more work per unit of time.

W = F * d , where F = m * a

If the cart is accelerated more, greater force is produced, therefore more work

is done (assuming acceleration is

constant or always greater than in the accelerated condition versus the H.I.T.

condition. Work is also related to

energy where:

W = E(kinetic) = 1/2 * m * v^2.

Therefore, the greater the velocity, the greater kinetic energy imparted to the

system (as E(in) = E(out); law of

conservation of energy), and the greater the work. Of course if the system is

accelerated, velocity is not

constant and total work is the sum of all instantaneous work measured. As can

be seen in the equation, velocity

has an exponential relationship to kinetic energy/work, so it's not just that

more work occurs during faster

movement, work is exponentially greater (to the 2nd power)

This has been demonstrated in interval training vs. LSD studies where less

distance is covered, but similar or

greater caloric expenditure (or energy output) occurs during interval training.

> There is very little in our field that is black and white, but the arguments

that have been developed to justify

> HIT methods are flat-out idiotic.

I completely agree. Another point that Brzycki misses is that while " his "

cart/pusher system (the slow moving one)

may be moving at a (slow) constant velocity, his limbs are accelerating while

pushing it as acceleration is the

rate of change in velocity (dv/dt). Even if he moved his limbs at a constant

speed, he is still accelerating as

velocity is a vector parameter consisting of the quantitative speed and a

directional component, and his limbs are

changing directions. You simply cannot avoid acceleration. Brzycki's ideas are

about as valid as perpetual motion

in a non-vacuum environment. Heck, Brzycki and his ideas belong in a vacuum, if

for no other reason that sound

doesn't travel in a vacuum and no one would be able to hear him

Loren Chiu

Graduate Assistant

Exercise Biochemistry Laboratory

Human Performance Laboratories

The University of Memphis

[Guest guest]

Kazimir Majorinc:

<How much one can clean & jerk/snatch with slow, controlled and continuous

movement, for let's say 5 seconds? Difference between his PR and this result

could be attributed to 'initial momentum' part, roughly but

probably good enough for this purpose. Do you know actual numbers?>

Mel Siff wrote:

<***This is missing the point and is equivalent to making the remark that we

should try to ascertain how much momentum contributes to horizontal

propulsion in sprinting by slowing the action down to a type of delayed, slow

" run " lasting 5 seconds. By doing that, the sprint has been changed into a

funereal walk or Zen type walking meditation.>

Kazimir Majorinc:

Well, it was not my analogy. Speed is a goal in sprinting and that's why such

comparison is so absurd. Better analogy is a comparison between sprinter and

one who pulls additional weight without resistance, something could be

concluded ... going deeper now is changing the subject.

Mel Siff:

<The biomechanics and neural processes involved are very different>

Kazimir Majorinc:

It is less important than simple physics here: imaginary robots could behave

similarly, although having pneumatics and wires instead of muscles and nerves.

Mel Siff:

<One cannot even distinguish between the contributions from initial

momentum and ongoing muscle action because these components are highly

interactive. As a mathematician, you know how important it is not to confuse

dependent with independent or interdependent variables.>

Kazimir Majorinc:

Proving too much here. You can calculate this in various ways, just like

contribution of the bench shirt, although it is 'interactive' and

'dependent' of the body action. More detailed analysis can be done later,

but it is important whether the difference is 20 or 200 lbs.

So, the result is probably significant; analysis could be done later. If one

lifter is much closer to clean with his slow clean than other, it is

conclusive data, too.

Mel Siff:

<Some folk have contacted me offline wondering why some HIT folk have not

responded yet with an attack on my comments about Brzycki's ideas on

ballistics and momentum, because copies of my original letters on this topic

have already been passed on. My reply to them is that the issue is not a

matter of attacking or defending Brzycki, but a matter of examining the very

clear errors made in the mechanics and physics that he tried to apply.

It is most likely that no attack has been forthcoming from HIT quarters

because the physics that we have been discussing is perfectly correct and the

flawed interpretation by Brzycki is not. The most that we will ever hope to

receive is some comment that his comments have been misunderstood or

misinterpreted (a technique not exclusive to Chek alone!)>

Kazimir Majorinc:

Well, OK if you wrote it ...

O-lifters use high forces with a reduced possibility of controlling the

movement,

due to high speed and the use of great weights in some positions. It is more

difficult to react to the first signs of possible injury on appropriate

way. Because of that, O-lifting is *relatively* dangerous.

It all seems to be sound reasoning. However, all of you, Matt, I and others

wrote about that which still constitutes mind games, and speculative theories

about injuries in O-lifting. Far more data is necessary to 'calculate' if it

is really significantly more dangerous. If our joints and bones are made of

steel, it is not, if made of glass, it is, and one cannot deduce such data from

elementary physics. Research or at least experience is, of course, a more

realistic way of reasoning here.

_______________________________________________________________

Kazimir Majorinc, dipl. ing. mathematics, prof. collaborator

Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Uni of Zagreb

Marulicev trg 19/III., HR-10000 Zagreb, p.o.box 163., Croatia

Tel.: 385-(0)1-48 28 298, Fax: 385-(0)1-48 29 958

mailto:kmajor@... http://public.srce.hr/~kmajor

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

M E R C Y O F C H A O S

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/8/01 7:08:37 PM, Mcsiff@... writes:

<< What you and Dan are referring to is the use of large magnitudes of

momentum

or kinetic energy to " carry " a movement from point A to point B without any

further use of muscle contraction during the motion. >>

Mel, please pay closer attention to what I wrote. At no point did I refer to

or suggest that there is an instance in which " large magnitudes of momentum "

would in fact " carry " a weight from point A to B. In fact, I believe my words

were something like: nobody would really believe this to be the case.

Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

[Guest guest]

They are not using momentum, they are using their backs to help propel them

through the sticking point. I am not discussing the validity or otherwise of

cheat curls, but let's call a spade a spade.

Cheers

Mike

----------------

From: " Rosemary Wedderburn " <CookieMagic@...>

> That was a very interesting assessment, Dan. Of course OLers use

> momentum; it's part of their strategy. As far as bodybuilding,

> you're always told to NOT use it if you want to get the most out of

> an exercise. In fact, you can often do more to cause hypertrophy by

> using a lighter load and a slower tempo. You see people in the gym

> who are not OLers who get a lot of momentum going who consequently

> are handling a lot more weight that they would if they stopped at

> the bottom of each rep, paused, then did another rep. Mostly young

> men with fragile egos doing cheat curls. It hurts my back to watch

> them.

[Guest guest]

Mcsiff@... wrote:

> Here are some extracts from one of the HIT (Highly Intensive

> Training) sites written by one of their better known HIT gurus. I

> found it archived on my computer, but cannot recall the URL - any

> offers?.

It can be found at: http://www.cyberpump.com/trainhard/pubs.html

In fact, most any HIT document can be found there.

> This material shows a rather deficient working knowledge of some

> basic mechanics and it is important that these technical errors be

> addressed.

I don't think the deficiency is limited to physics...

> More Fitness Facts and Fables

> by Matt Brzycki

> [snip Brzycki's article] ...

> 1. How it is possible to lift a weight WITHOUT the use of

> momentum? Momentum is defined as the product of mass x velocity (p

> = M.V) for a mass M moving at a constant velocity V, so that

> movement at ANY velocity creates momentum. Some change of momentum

> is necessary to change the existing state of a body at rest or

> constant velocity - at least that is what Newton's First Law

> implies.

I'm sorry, but this is a really weak straw man argument -- and a very

pedantic one too. Just put " significant " in front of " momentum "

every time Brzycki says it, and most of these problems goes away.

No one's going to deny that a power clean relies on momentum more

than a deadlift; he's got a point. If you let go of a snatch or

clean on the way up, it'll keep going. If you let go of a deadlift,

it just falls to the ground.

(We can obviously get persnickety and claim it's just a matter of

degree. If the deadlift has any velocity at all -- and it does --

it'll continue upward before falling too, but it's negligible. A

popular article should dismiss negligible effects; it shouldn't

belabor them.)

Where he goes from there may not make any sense, but obviously the

" quick " lifts only work when you do them quickly.

> 2. One does not use momentum to lift a weight. One uses FORCE to

> overcome the weight exerted by a load being kept on the surface of

> the Earth by the pull of gravity.

Oh, good l.... That's more pedantic than your first point.

In a ballistic lift, the lifter obviously does rely on the momentum

he's imparted to the bar to help carry it through the full range of

motion. I don't think anyone is unclear on that.

Brzycki does miss the point that the momentum came from the lifter,

or at least he seems to miss that point, and that's where his

argument falls apart.

In fact, he seems to use the same mental model for " big " lifts (e.g.

power cleans, deadlifts) as he does for " isolation " movements (e.g.

curls). If your goal is to work your biceps, throwing your back into

the movement reduces the work your biceps have to do (for a given

weight; you can always increase the weight), and he seems to throw

this use of " momentum " into the same basket as performing a power

clean.

> Momentum is the result of force being exerted on the body.

> Since Brzycki quoted Newton's 2nd Law, then he should surely

> remember the 1st Law by the same 'dude', which ran something like

> this:

>

> " A body will remain in its original state of rest or movement at

> constant velocity unless acted upon by an outside force. "

>

> Note that Newton wrote about force and not momentum - he only wrote

> about momentum in his 2nd Law, which was not really stated as F =

> Mass x Acceleration. What Newton actually wrote was close to this:

>

> " The force (implied by the 1st Law) acting on a body is

> proportional to the rate of change of momentum " .

>

> This, of course, emphasizes that it is not momentum, but rate of

> momentum change which gives rise to a force, but if one has

> received a rather limited exposure to biomechanics and physics

> during formal training, some of the precise subtleties of these

> subjects may be missed.

Your point?

> 3. What is meant by " potential force " ? Potential refers to

> something that has not really happened, not something that is in

> progress, as in the situation above. This redundant terminology

> adds no understanding to the problem, but possibly has been

> employed in some attempt to impress with jargon, like some other

> gurus whom we know!

I'm not quite sure where he's going with that either. Something

along the lines of " How much force you can potentially apply depends

on how quickly you accelerate the weight " ?

At any rate, I'd think that'd contradict his point that you should

just go slow. Accelerating a 100-lb weight twice as fast as a 200-lb

weight should involve the same force. What's the problem?

> 4. In stating that " whenever you lift a weight explosively,

> momentum is introduced to overcome inertia and provide impetus to

> the weight or resistance " , Brzycki failed to point out the

> underlying equation which applies to the motion of the load and the

> lifter.

I wouldn't expect him to introduce many equations in a popular

article.

> This equation would have shown his readers that, if one is lifting

> a load against gravity and then ceases to apply force, then there

> will be no upward acceleration and the load will be decelerated and

> slowed down by gravity.

He never said it'll continue to accelerate upward; he just said it'll

continue to move upward. And he's right. About that.

> Even if the load is fairly light (say, about equal to bodymass),

> the moment imparted by the initial pull is insufficient to lift the

> bar very far without continued application of force, as has been

> shown in many biomechanical studies.

It's still easier to lift than if less upward velocity had been

imparted to the bar.

> Parameters of the Pull during the Clean

>

> Force at start of pull = 140-160% of weight on bar

> Force during the double-knee bend phase = 160-180% of weight

> Force near catch of load = 100-70% of weight (near end of

> movement)

Brzycki obviously ignores the importance of those first two values (>

100%) and only sees the last value (< 100%) -- or the value belong to

the portion of the lift just before the catch really. He is

basically right about that last bit though, even if he doesn't see

the big picture.

> In other words, the force near the end of the movement is LESS than

> during earlier stages of the pull, so how can Brzycki condemn

> explosive movements on the basis of what momentum does near the end

> of the action?

Force on the bar or force on the elbow and knee joints? I think his

intuition about ballistic movements is a bit confused.

> Of course, it appears to the untutored observer that the bar

> actually is moving very rapidly in the Olympic lifts, but research

> shows that it is the RELATIVE velocity of the bar which is large,

> not necessarily the ABSOLUTE velocity of the bar which is large.

What is the velocity of a typical power clean? What is the velocity

of a typical deadlift?

> Brzycki continues to say: " After the initial explosive movement,

> little or no resistance is encountered by the muscles throughout

> the remaining ranges of motion. In simple terms, the weight is

> practically moving under its own power. " By focusing his

> attention on the muscles, he has ignored the concurrent dynamics of

> the external load and the lifter's body. Had he done so, he would

> have realised that, although there is no significant resistance,

> there was still plenty of inertia involved and that gravity would

> have a major say in determining the ultimate fate of the upward

> moving bar. Vertically projected loads on planet Earth generally

> tend to be slowed down by the effects of gravity, whether they

> encounter other resistance or not, as everyone knows.

Right. So? He overstates his case, certainly, but he didn't claim

that weights travel skyward indefinitely; you're putting those words

in his mouth.

> 5. It is incorrect to state that the Olympic lifter does not apply

> continued force throughout the Olympic lifts.

It's not nearly as constant as in a less-ballistic lift though.

> Lifters do not depend on a single ballistic pull or thrust to move

> a load overhead; they rely on a combination of momentum and

> continued application of muscular force (or in other words, on a

> combination of kinetic and potential elastic energy).

I think he'd actually agree with that; he just can't articulate it

well.

> Now for the really bad news for Brzycki - what he says about the

> risks of momentum and imposition of large terminal forces applies

> more accurately to situations when the unloaded body or very light

> loads are involved in sport and training. Thus the accelerations

> and very often, the joint and muscle forces experienced in

> activities such as running, jumping, hitting and throwing can far

> exceed those of Olympic lifting.

Right, he just sees that Olympic lifting is more ballistic (more like

running, jumping, hitting, and throwing) than other lifting, and

assumes it must be more dangerous.

> His total lack of peer-reviewed clinical evidence and his flawed

> biomechanical analysis of lifting do not offer logical scientific

> proof of his case. It is regrettable that one can taint his

> undoubted practical experience with far too much prejudice. While I

> certainly agree that plyometric training is often massively

> misunderstood, misapplied and overused by certain gurus in the USA,

> one should rather return some more sanity to the situation by means

> of valid theory and research, not simply emotive prejudice and

> pseudo-science. Sadly, Brzycki often does far more harm to the

> cause than do many of his opponents, simply because of his lack of

> objectivity.

Well said.

Matt Madsen

[Guest guest]

On 1/7/01, Mel Siff wrote:

< I have had endless encounters with Chek and others over the issue of

definitions and laws in statics, mechanics and physics, who think that I am just

being difficult and pedantic.>

This is a common problem of interpretation faced by any of us who attempt to

enlighten the uninitiated regarding application of the most basic of physics

principles. You most certainly have much good company in your affliction. I

wonder if this situation is less prevalent in Europe, S. Africa, Russia,

Australia, etc., than it is in the good old USA?

In the USA, rigorous public education in physics is often sacrificed in the

name of 'student interest' and congeniality by decree of administrators no

less ignorant than the students themselves of the niceties of the strict

discipline that is physics.

My own experience (limited though it certainly is) with foreign exchange

students would NOT support contentions that other countries fare

significantly better in education of the general population in physics.

Comments or observations from abroad?

Boardman