Talk:Work (physics)/Archives/2008/August

Simple is better

Work is a very important encyclopedia entry. People without math degrees should be able to read this article and easily understand the topic. I just simplified the first paragraph, please don't revert it back to the discombobulated clusterfuck that it used to be.

I just don't understand peoples' desire to make a simple concept more complicated than it is (or needs to be) by piling on excessive technical jargon and unordered random crap. Sullevon 16:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the edit you made; In a more general context, however, it is often impossible to give a definition which is both simple and correct. An encyclopedia should, IMO, err on the side of correctness. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not follow the example of pretty much all text books and say that, roughly speaking, work = force x distance? Then launch into the more complex introductory description. Mr. Jones (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your sign convention used for PV type work done in isothermal process, because in case of isothermal process the energy is supplied to the system and work is done at the cost of supplied energy, therefore, the work done in isothermal process can not have negative sign.[ User: prof. Rajendra Mandapmalvi,( Email : mandapmalvi@hotmail.com)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.1.88.162 (talk) 15:07, 15 September, 2007 (UTC)