Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:18 am
Sure, if you are more interested in trolling than discussing an issue for the benefit of the audience.Grzegorz wrote:
They have. Elastic potential energy, gravitational potential energy, ...
A forum to talk about Olympic style shooting, rifle or pistol, 10 meters to 50 meters, and whatever is in between. Hosted by Pilkguns.com
https://targettalk.org/
Sure, if you are more interested in trolling than discussing an issue for the benefit of the audience.Grzegorz wrote:
They have. Elastic potential energy, gravitational potential energy, ...
First of all, I sincerely apologize for my comments. It is my fault - I considered Target Talk forum as open for a free exchange of opinions. As I am physicist working at the university of technology (department of applied physics, laboratory of physics in sport), I face there all around engineers and often we discuss on “their” definitions that are incorrect in our physicists opinion. I should not bring these discussions here even if they concerns shooting equipment – in spite of the fact that this topic is called “VRS – Defined”. I forgot, it could be incomprehensible for most of forum users. By writing in this topic, I wanted to point out that often by setting rules too much in detail (defining), one may reach an unexpected result. And saying “any active VRSs are prohibited” generates less problems than saying, for example, “any active VRSs using an external supply are prohibited”, because this second statement leads to divagations what does it means “external”, that causes problems – reduces a space for judges decisions (because the systems are “precisely” defined) and open space for any cheating. Simplified rules, more space for jury members decisions. We are really not malicious :-)ShootingSight wrote:
Sure, if you are more interested in trolling than discussing an issue for the benefit of the audience.