Re: Work-Energy or Work-Kinetic Energy??

[SCIAMANDA@edinboro.edu]

Joel (thankfully) wrote:

> Three cheers for the below,

> And to reiterate:
> I don't think the work-energy theorem is ambigous at all.  If you look at 
> how it is derived; you see that Work of ALL forces acting on a point-like 
> object = change in KINETIC ENERGY.
>
> some of the "counter-examples" posed in previous posts omitted calculating 
> the Work of ALL the forces and only calculated the Work of SOME of the 
forces acting on the object.
> Joel
 ----------
> From: Martha Takats
> . . . 
I third the motion!
People are still confusing the work energy theorem with the first 
law of thermodynamics and with the conservation of energy.

Again, I rest my case regarding the confusion generated by corrupting 
the pristine definition of work.

Bob Sciamanda           sciamanda@edinboro.edu
Dept of Physics         sciamanda@worldnet.att.net
Edinboro Univ of PA     http://www.edinboro.edu/~sciamanda/home.html