Re: Why work before energy in texts

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

I wrote:

> "BOTTOM LINE: Defining work in terms of potential energy is a
> blunder.  Defining potential energy in terms of work is an even bigger
> blunder."

Then Joel Rauber wrote:
> Many respected authors do this of course,
> (define potential energy in terms of work)
>
> E.g.
> Feynman chapters 13 and 14 Vol. 1
> Goldstein page 4, 3rd ed.
> Arnold page 15
> Marion 4th ed., page 79
>
> . . . ad nauseum

Huh?

When I look at Feynman volume I page 13-3, a few lines below equation
13.9, it seems absolutely clear that work is being _defined_ in terms
of F dot ds.

There may be _examples_ where some sort of calculation shows a
relationship between work and potential energy, but an example is not
the same thing as a definition.  Not by a long shot.

I stand by my assertion: Defining work in terms of potential energy
would be a blunder.  Defining potential energy in terms of work would
be an even bigger blunder.