Re: Sans Work, part 1 (Long and wordy)

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>]

> Leigh asked:
> > Your MET is understood. It is evidently correct. It is not
> > one of the two forms of the work-energy theorem put forth
> > in Hestenes's text. Can you give us examples of problems
> > best treated by this approach (the skater is a good one)?
> > It seems that this theorem is much underexploited because
> > few problems are posed that are readily solvable using it.
> > Leigh
>
> Besides the auto: a person walking on the ground, a man
> climbing a rope, a window washer pulling on a rope slung
> over an anchored pulley and terminated on his platform,
> the monkey climbing a rope slung over an anchored pulley
> with a balancing weight hanging from the other end.

I should have added something. I meant "It seems that this
theorem is much underexploited because few problems are
posed that are readily solvable using it *which are not
readily solved using other techniques*." I think the skater
and the automobile are excellent examples because they are
solved conceptually without evoking the concept of work.
Sure, work is done, but it is not important to the
understanding of the physical system's "behaviour". It is
preferable not to introduce work early in this process, and
MET is much to be preferred.

An example unrelated to those above which can be treated
valuably is the dragster. In this case the wheels spin,
energy is dissipated, and the MET still gives the correct
motion. That's the sort of example I was thinking of.

Leigh