Re: work done by friction

[Bob Sciamanda <trebor@VELOCITY.NET>]

We hashed out this "work" terminology ad nauseam some time ago.  I agree
with Leigh's general appraisal.

Let me take this occasion to note that the I am re-writing (and expanding)
the essay which I posted at this thread's earlier incarnation ("Without
Work") as a stand-alone teaching aid, and will put it on my web page.
Will let you know when it happens.

Bob

Bob Sciamanda (W3NLV)
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (em)
trebor@velocity.net
http://www.velocity.net/~trebor

----- Original Message -----
From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: work done by friction


> This topic seems to be generating a lot of heat by friction among
> the discussants. I offer the modest suggestion that what work is
> is relatively unimportant, a matter of taxonomy at best. If one
> looks at a particular transformation a system undergoes and asks
> "What are the initial and final energies of A and B?" instead of
> "How much work does A do on B?", is the question of what to name
> the agent of change operating in the system really physical? I
> can't think of a situation in which knowing how to classify such
> a process really matters.
>
> Leigh