Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

why pseudowork?

The objects whose interactions are analyzed in the "mechanics" part
of an introductory physics course are treated as rigid. Therefore, if
we agree with John (see below) then the traditional work, F*d,
should be called pseudowork. I am assuming that the direction of F
passes through the C.M. and that cos(TET)=1.

My question is this. Why should the renaming affect elementary
courses rather than more advanced courses, such as thermodynamic?
The "pseudo" part implies that the F*d is less good than the "real
work". Why should we distract novices with "pseudo" when we are
not ready to make it meaningful? Keeping things as simple as possible
is importnat, complications should be introduced gradually and our
terminology should promote this.
Ludwik Kowalski

Debating with John Denker, John Mallinckrodt wrote:

.... Then you wrote:

Of course the block did not do work on the table; nothing is going to do work
on the table since it is assumed stationary.

Here you are using a *different* definition of work (i.e., work on the
system = change in kinetic energy of the system--the kind of work that we,
and many others, call "pseudowork"). I have no quarrels with that
definition, I simply require you to recognize that it is a different
definition. This is why I said and why I say again ...