Thanks. I admit that my previous article was in error but this new article uses a different approach to the problem. It shows that the current equation was neve

Thanks. I admit that my previous article was in error but this new article uses a different approach to the problem. It shows that the current equation was never meant to replace the previous one. Coriolis clearly wrote that he used vis viva = ½mv² for purposes of convenience. Edit: I'm grateful for our previous exchange. You pointed out new places and ideas that were useful to my research.