Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Work-energy worries



On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, John S. Denker wrote:

John Mallinckrodt wrote:

... I believe that if we restrict our attention to that question,
use the most common definition of work (the one that is presented in
introductory physics--i.e., work done = path integral of the applied
force dotted with the displacement of the point of application),

Yes, that's the only definition of force that makes sense
to me.

I assume you meant to say "work" rather than "force." As you know, I
recognize other definitions for other work-like quantities, but I
agree that this ought to be the default definition of "work."

and
answer the question within the context of the introductory course, the
correct answer will be equal to the acquired bulk kinetic energy of
the anchor and the boat.

To the extent that that excludes the boater, I disagree.

And there is a *genuine* point of departure. I stand by everything I
have written in this thread and am content now to leave it to others
to judge the merits of the arguments that have been put forward.

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.