Timeline for Potential energy definition in terms of work done
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 26, 2016 at 23:15 | comment | added | garyp | I would agree that it's wrong, but I'm reluctant to make such an absolute statement. Such is what happens to you when you become a physicist. Drives my wife crazy. But really ... it's wrong. | |
| Sep 26, 2016 at 20:37 | comment | added | user4205580 | 'Perhaps you say this because the attractive force will move the mass with no external work?' - of course, yes. They explicitly state: the potential energy is the work you must do in order to move it from reference point to some other point, which just isn't the case. I don't have to do any work to move it from infinity towards the earth, so again: their definition is not confusing or incomplete, but simply wrong. | |
| Sep 26, 2016 at 19:53 | comment | added | Bill N | Hyperphysics probably needs to clarify which force is doing the work they mean. They also should clarify that it's the work done by that force during the process of going from a rest position to a different rest position. Then the external force must do some work either to make the object move (lifting against gravity to make it move up-> positive work) or make it stop (pulling against gravity to make it stop falling -> negative work). I like the definition @garyp states MUCH better. | |
| Sep 26, 2016 at 19:21 | history | answered | garyp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |