Re: [Phys-l] Configurational energy

["LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>]

I use a similar approach. I like to emphasize the work-KE theorem. I see
the "Potential" energies as tools that will allow you to quickly
calculate the change in the KE when the "configuration" of the system is
changed. The potential energies calculate the work done by the various
conservative forces - only requiring knowledge of the initial and final
configurations. That leaves only a calculation of the work done by the
nonconservative forces to determine the KE change.

Bob at PC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
> bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Dan Crowe
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 11:21 PM
> To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> Subject: [Phys-l] Configurational energy
>
> I often use "configurational energy" as a preferred synonym for
> "potential energy".  Using the phrase "configurational energy" helps
> avoid two common misconceptions about potential energy, because it
> doesn't imply that the quantity isn't really energy, and it implies
that
> the energy is due to an interaction between two or more objects.
>
> I recently discovered that "configurational energy" is used fairly
> commonly in a more restricted sense in the study of liquids and
solids.
> Do any subscribers to this forum use the phrase "configurational
energy"
> in these contexts, or in other contexts where it is used in a more
> restricted sense than just "potential energy"?  If yes, would the use
of
> "configurational energy" as a synonym for "potential energy" in
general
> cause confusion with the use of "configurational energy" in the more
> restricted sense?
>
> Daniel Crowe
> Loudoun Academy of Science
> dan.crowe@loudoun.k12.va.us
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l