Re: There's work, and then there's work

[David Rutherford <drutherford@SOFTCOM.NET>]

John Mallinckrodt wrote:
> David Rutherford wrote:
>
> > While you're at it, check out my correction of the common definition of
> > work/energy at:
> >
> > http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf
>
> As has been pointed out here before in a thread beginning with
>
>    http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0209&L=phys-l&D=0&P=63677
>
> Rutherford makes the elementary mistake of double counting
> contributions to the total energy of a system of charges.

You make the elementary mistake of not counting the work necessary to
keep the charges that are already in position from flying away when new
charges are brought into the configuration. How do you propose to
assemble a configuration, in the first place, if the assembled charges
keep flying off every time you bring in a new one?

> He "justifies" this by redefining the term "work" so that (what I'll
> call) "Rutherford Work" is done even on point particles that do not
> move.  He does all of this without the least concern that his results
> violate every relevant experimental result.

Like what? Please be specific.

--
Dave Rutherford
"New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf

Applications:
"4/3 Problem Resolution"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf
"Action-reaction Paradox Resolution"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf
"Energy Density Correction"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf
"Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf