Re: work, energy, etc

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

At 08:26 PM 10/11/01 -0700, Bernard Cleyet wrote:
> I can't believe this, but then that's probably because I haven't been
> reading this thread closely.

Well, some rather careful arguments have been put forward in this thread.

> I would think one should introduce concepts first that are easily apprehended
> (original meaning).  i.e. work first, as it's so kinesthetic, while energy is
> rather nebulous.
>
> Am I missing it?

One of my hobbies is teaching people to fly airplanes.  Energy management
is important.  The penalty for mismanagement is not a bad grade on some
multiple-choice test -- the penalty is injury or death.

Nebulous?  I'll agree that energy is intangible and somewhat abstract, but
calling it nebulous seems unduly pejorative.  As I've said before, energy
is the fundamental and primary quantity;  work is a secondary and derived
quantity.

I wrote a book on how to fly airplanes.  In the first chapter, the word
"energy" appears 188 times.  The noun "work" does not appear at all.  (The
word "work" appears once, as a non-technical verb.)

Work first?  In the airplane, there is no sense of work, kinesthetic or
otherwise.  Energy is important.  Power is important.  The topic of "work"
simply never comes up.