No announcement yet.

Re: Positive Work in Cyclic Motion

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Positive Work in Cyclic Motion

    Peter Davidson made two points that were close to being correct but are
    in fact examples of his own mistaken description of the problem of
    describing work. He states that "work is a form of energy..." In fact
    work is the transfer of energy. When describing the work done by an
    object, or the work done on an object one must define the question of
    interest carefully. As Peter stated, the system must be defined. His
    mistake can be illustrated most simply by the example of the object
    thrown straight up which falls to rest in exactly the same location. The
    problem is that the object doing the work we are interested in measuring
    was not defined carefully. There was indeed no net work done on the
    object thrown BY ITS ENVIRONMENT, but there certainly was work done by
    the thrower on the object. The thrower displaced the object against the
    force due to gravity and changed its mechanical potential by the distance
    above its resting position it was lifted. The fact that gravity caused
    the object to be displaced in the other direction does not make the work
    done by the thrower zero.
    Similarly, the fact that the kinetic energy transfered to the
    particles of water is ultimately dissipated to the environment does not
    make the work done on the water BY THE SWIMMER zero. This work would
    seem to be the transfer of energy that is of interest in this
    experimental condition.
    To quickly summarize, the discussion of work must include the
    definition of the bodies of interest because work is not energy but the
    transfer of energy. If the bodies of interest are not described in the
    statement of the problem we can expand the system infinitely to the level
    of the universe and the problem becomes one of "understanding entropy."
    Careful use of terms such as work and energy is essential.
    Considering them to be equal would be like using heat and thermal energy
    to mean the same thing. A final note to Peter on this point: You
    suggested that there may be confusion on the list concerning "effort",
    "work", and "energy". I suspect that few of us are confusing effort and
    energy, but the latter terms may be used carelessly. The more important
    lesson is to carefully define the objects of study between which energy
    is being transfered. It is one of the first lessons in mechanics that
    Newton would have taught, I'm sure. It's certainly one that most of us
    who studied physics or mechanics had to learn.


    Leonard G. Caillouet
    Louisiana State University
    MS Candidate, Dept. of Kinesiology