Re: ENERGY WITH Q

["RAUBER, JOEL" <JOEL_RAUBER@SDSTATE.EDU>]

Carl Mungan wrote in part:
>

>
. . .
> HOW MUCH WORK DID THE BLOCK DO ON THE TABLE?
>
> . . .
>
> Only three people that I know about are allowed to choose both
> answers: they are John M, Joel R, and Gene M. John D has lots of
> support here:

I probably shouldn't ask, but how did the three of us get special
dispensation?  I suppose it must have been those indulgences I bought a few
years ago.  :-)

. . .
> so are academic scholars. From this limited survey, we can say that
> about 97% of all physicists are *hostile* to pseudowork. I chose the
> highlighted word purposefully. As I have gone around my dept here at
> the Academy for example, my colleagues tell me they not only don't
> teach pseudowork, they believe it's a confusing, heretical term in
> league with cold fusion, astrology, and such ilk.

Are they hostile the name or to the concept?

> * center-of-mass work - this is a good and clear name but only
> *after* the concept of center of mass has been discussed; not all
> texts put this before the work chapter

Carl, does this mean you are part of the 3% who do like psuedo-work; but you
don't like the name, using various ones of three names you proffered
instead?  If so, I agree, I like the concept but not the name.  I have been
known to use "center-of-mass work" which is my vote for a name and needs to
be carefully distinguished from F dot ds.

> * mechanical work - this name is somewhat misleading, but as a
> contrast to thermodynamic work it has some merits
>
> * just plain work - . . .