Re: Work/Energy theorem ?

[Jim Green <JMGreen@sisna.com>]

Leigh, I wonder if your are being consistent:

> ...   A farting fly ... 

Love the imagery!

>                                  that energy is insubstantial; that
> there is no such thing as "pure energy". I wish they had not picked up
> that particular concept. Caloric does not belong in a modern curriculum.

No problem here, but aren't you the one who likes "energy flows"???? 

> If you want to see energy done well, see Feynman Volume 1 on the
> conservation of energy. He has a parable (Dennis and his blocks) which,
> as usual, is conceptually right on the money. 

Leigh, do you really mean this?  The great Feynman does a pretty good job of
describing the Conservation of Energy -- EXCEPT he uses a "substance" ie
blocks to represent "energy" -- and UNTIL he gets to counting "heat energy"
in with the blocks.  Later when he talks about the First Law, he talks about
"adding heat" etc  etc.  All very unnerving.  And, wasn't it Feynman who
somewhere talks about throwing blocks out of two different windows of a room
-- all the while picturing the blocks as "energy" and one window  as "heat"
and the other as "work"???  Very unnerving.  



Jim Green
JMGreen@sisna.com