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

[twayburn@juno.com (Thomas L Wayburn)]

On Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:02:04 -0800 Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes:
> Bob,
>
> You have a serious word wrap problem.
>
> > > > Again, I rest my case regarding the confusion generated by 
> corrupting
> > > > the pristine definition of work.
> > >
> > > OK Bob, I'll bite. What is the "pristine" definition of work and by
> > > whom was it proclaimed to be so? Which of the meanings of 
> "pristine"
> > > is intended here?
> > >
> > > Leigh
> >
> > Chill, old man!  I knew "pristine" would draw fire as soon as I typed
> > it!
>
> Then you should have erased it. If you won't tell me what you meant,
> please tell me what you meant to mean!
>
> > Seriously, please don't drag me into a semantic argument, especially 
> since
> > I and the list have chewed this cabbage at length in the very recent 
> past.
> > In fact a post of mine laboriously spelled out the conventionaly 
> accepted
> > definition of work and the work-energy theorem.
>
> OK then. What is the conventionally accepted definition of work?
> Whose convention are you following? Please; I really have no idea
> what your definition of work might be.

I still like my definition:  Work (in the FLT, at least) is energy
crossing the control surface not mediated by mass and having no effect on
the entropy balance.  Work is like entropy-free heat OR, as Summerfeld
says, like heat at infinite temperature.  - TLW