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] |
John Mallinckrodt wrote:
Work (in any of its
many forms) is conventionally *defined* as a product of some force
with some distance (or, more generally, as a sum of integrals of
infinitesimal such products.)
I would have said that work is conventionally defined to be the integral
of F dot ds, where ds is well-defined (and therefore work is
well-defined) if and !!only!! if we are dealing with pointlike particles
(i.e. no internal structure).
Recommendation: When in doubt, decompose the system into pointlike
elements and apply F dot ds to each element separately. If you do
anything else, you're strictly on your own -- you shouldn't call it
"work", and whatever you call it you will have to explain what it is and
why we should care.