Abstract
PROF. LODGE (NATURE, p. 174) maintains, in opposition to my correction, that your report of his recent paper on dynamical axioms was accurate in making the following statement:—“Dr. MacGregor objects to the author's definition of energy as the name given to work done,' and contends that this definition assumes conservation.” He cites in proof the first two pages of my paper in the February number of the Phil. Mag. These pages, however, contain no reference to this definition, but a discussion of his definition of energy as the effect of work done. The definition of energy as a name given to work done is discussed on the fourth page, where the following will be found:—“In a second version of the above argument Newton's third law and contact action are the only assumptions made… The definition of energy in this argument is quite different from that of the earlier paper:—‘Energy is that which a body loses when it does work; and it is to be measured as numerically equal to the work done.‚ There is here no reference to working-power. Loss of energy is simply a synonym for work done by, and gain of energy for work done on.”
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
MACGREGOR, J. The Fundamental Axioms of Dynamics. Nature 48, 223 (1893). https://doi.org/10.1038/048223a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/048223a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.