Re: There's work, and then there's work

[John Mallinckrodt <ajm@CSUPOMONA.EDU>]

David Rutherford wrote:

> While you're at it, check out my correction of the common definition of
> work/energy at:
>
> http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf

As has been pointed out here before in a thread beginning with

  http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0209&L=phys-l&D=0&P=63677

Rutherford makes the elementary mistake of double counting
contributions to the total energy of a system of charges.  He
"justifies" this by redefining the term "work" so that (what I'll
call) "Rutherford Work" is done even on point particles that do not
move.  He does all of this without the least concern that his results
violate every relevant experimental result.

--
   A. John Mallinckrodt        http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm
   Professor of Physics      mailto:ajm@csupomona.edu
   Physics Department         voice:909-869-4054
   Cal Poly Pomona              fax:909-869-5090
   Pomona, CA 91768-4031     office:Building 8, Room 223