On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:35:16 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote in the standing wave thread:

snip

The strict definition of work is the same as energy. So moving energy is
technically doing work, even if no energy is being dissipated or being
put to any useful purpose.

snip

How is the word "moving" being used in this quote? Is it used as a
gerund meaning "causing to move" or as a participle describing energy
that is in motion?

I can accept that causing energy to move, as in accelerating charges
to launch an EM wave, requires work be done. And that the existence of
moving energy in an EM wave implies work was done at some previous
time.

But the mere movement of energy (say, in free space) does not seem to
involve work. If it does, is that work in addition to the work done to
launch the energy? Is the amount of work done per unit time (or
distance) constant?

It cannot be the work done by the moving-while-alternating E-field on
all the charges in the universe, since it is claimed that no energy is
being "dissipated."

Is some transformation of EM energy taking place?

TIA for any elucidation.

73,
Chuck NT3G




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----