Richard Henry wrote:
On Feb 21, 6:48 am, Walt wrote:
I've looked at it, and while I can't say that it's wrong, it's not the
way I would organize the information. For instance, presenting WORK
ENERGY and POWER as three distinct categories is somewhat artificial.

Sort of like going to a store's website and seeing three categories:
GEAR EQUIPMENT and PRICING. What's the difference between gear and
equipment?

So, what's the difference between ENERGY and WORK? From a formalist
approach, energy and work are defined separately, then one uses Newton's
laws to prove the work energy theorem which shows that they are
equivalent. So I don't think there's a lot to be gained by
distinguishing the two concepts. Others may differ, but this is a
dispute over pedagogy not physics.

Other than that, I don't see any errors, other than the usual
obfuscation that inevitably occurs when one tries to present physics
without using calculus.

You might want to read through the subject of vectors since you asked me
about it.

I assume you've looked at the page on torque?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...torq.html#torq

Even without calculus, you can do dimensional analysis, reducing to
elementary concepts such as mass, distance, and time.

In that view, work and energy are equivalent. One exends energy to do
work in direct proportion. When you work against gravity to raise an
object, or work against spring compression to wind a clock, you
increase the object's potential energy. Power, however, is energy
divided by time.

There's that word "potential" that Walt told me didn't exist
in the present discussion of mechanics.