Re: ENERGY BEFORE Q

["RAUBER, JOEL" <JOEL_RAUBER@SDSTATE.EDU>]

Just one small reply on one point.


> This is not different from what one can find in most texts.
> Unexpectedly one highly knowledgeable phys_L-er objected.
> He wrote:
>
> > I stand by my assertion:  Defining work in terms of
> > potential energy [this was NOT my suggestion] would
> > be a blunder. Defining potential energy [as above] in
> > terms of work would be an even bigger blunder.
>
> Repeated calls for a clarification were not answered. Why?
> I am puzzled. I do not want to go from Model 1 to Model 2
> without resolving the above issue. The three lines above
> represent the very essence of Model 1.  Why were they
> labeled as a "big blunder." Please help to resolve this dilemma.

I agree with the first sentence of the knowledgeable phys-Ler, I think
defining work in terms of potential energy is a blunder.  The reason being
in anticipation of later introducing non-conservative forces where the
definition won't work.

I'm too am still curious as to why defining potential energy in terms of
work is a bigger blunder.

(I don't view the two statements as being reflexive, which might be the
objection, but I don't know.)