| 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] |
Chabay and Sherwood use "interaction energy" and I kind of like that. It seems to me to be more direct than configuration energy, although it looks pretty synonymous to me. I have been using interaction energy for a couple of years now, although I forget a lot since my habit has been to call it potential for so many years I have been having trouble breaking the habit. Of course, it is still called potential energy in almost all the books, which means that using it probably creates some confusion in the kids' minds. However, if the end result is better understanding, I don't mind that.
I often use "configurational energy" as a preferred synonym for
"potential energy". Using the phrase "configurational energy" helps
avoid two common misconceptions about potential energy, because it
doesn't imply that the quantity isn't really energy, and it implies that
the energy is due to an interaction between two or more objects.
I recently discovered that "configurational energy" is used fairly
commonly in a more restricted sense in the study of liquids and solids.
Do any subscribers to this forum use the phrase "configurational energy"
in these contexts, or in other contexts where it is used in a more
restricted sense than just "potential energy"? If yes, would the use of
"configurational energy" as a synonym for "potential energy" in general
cause confusion with the use of "configurational energy" in the more
restricted sense?