My dearest friend, Gene. Here is where I think we may part company (as much as this saddens me...).
I honestly don't see the relevancy of associating joule with newton-meter *necessarily*. Here is one of those things when application, convenience, simplicity, comes to play a role. True, I have no qualms with your "return to origin" argumentation, but if we put ourselves in the shoes of those who would be using the joule, please remember that *for them/these people* it's much better to associate power with energy as these two are the properties that they would be more familiar with and use the most. So, from this perspective, my dear friend, please give them some leeway here and provide them with the flexibility of, at least, "relating" to the joule via watt-second, ok? P-l-e-a-s-e?... (Just a humble, harmless request... :-) ). Marcus On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:29:01 Gene Mechtly wrote: >On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Joseph B. Reid wrote: >> ... >> I prefer to express the joule as the watt second because the watt is more >> familiar to the ordinary person than the newton. > >Lack of familiarity with the newton and joule is a deficiency of >traditional science education. > >joule = watt second is merely an "identity" as I have already explained. > >1 joule = 1 watt second = 1 (joule/second) second = 1 joule, which >goes in an endless circle and contains *nothing* about the origin >(fundamental definition) of the joule as a newton meter. > >Gene. > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
