Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
From: John Mallinckrodt <ajmallinckro@CSUPOMONA.EDU>What are they? I only know of one definition. Of course, I'm not equating *work* and *pseudowork*. One is a transfer of energy and the other is not.
I remind the readership of phys-l once again that there are at
least seven distinct, useful, and regularly used definitions of
work. We've been through these arguments so many times and they
is being discussed and the work-energy relationship that isTHIS is just as much a part of the problem as sloppy usage. The only correct definition of work that I'm aware of is *a process by which energy is transfered into or out of a system by application of a force*. There are of course other quantities that mathematically look like work, but because they do not correspond to any transfer of energy then we can't, and shouldn't, really call them work. Therefore, I find it logically inconsistent to say there are numerous correct defitions of work since there can really be only one correct definition.
applicable as a result. Despite the many reincarnations of this
thread, many of us still act as if there was a universally
agreed upon definition of "work." Repeat after me:
"There is NO universally agreed upon definition of 'work.'"