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] |
On 10/17/2007 04:42 PM, Dan Crowe wrote:jsd@av8n.com 10/17/2007 5:12 PM >>>
John Denker wrote, in part:
"A name is not an explanation."
Names should at least not contradict explanations.
I used to say that kinetic energy is the energy an object has due toto
its motion, and that potential energy was the energy that it has due
its position. These explanations were fairly common when I startedenergy
teaching physics 20 years ago. I found the latter explanation to be
inadequate, because students did not appreciate that potential
was associated with a system, rather than with a single object.a
Potential energy is the energy associated with the configuration of
system, not the position of a single object. This was why I started
using the phrase "configurational energy".