Re: Work/Energy theorem ?

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>]

> 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.

Feynman emphasizes the difference between Dennis's blocks and energy:
with energy there are no blocks! He makes that a very strong point.
That and the necessity of making a mathematical statement are the
reasons I like the development so much.

I don't remember the business about windows being "Heat" and "work".
I tend to be rather uncritical of what Feynman writes. I was
privileged to spend some considerable time with him on several
visits he made to British Columbia, both alone and with his family.
When I read what he says (he doesn't write it; Leighton and Sands
did that) I do so hearing his voice. He may disagree with some of
my cherished views (though I can't think where), but he was such a
great teacher of physics that he could probably convert me. Donald
feels that he is not read by physics teachers. If that is so it is
a great pity. At the very least everyone should read "QED: the
strange theory of light and matter". It has no equations in it.

I am very sorry he's gone.

Leigh