Re: ENERGY WITH Q

["RAUBER, JOEL" <JOEL_RAUBER@SDSTATE.EDU>]

Ludwik,

perhaps I'm jumping the gun before we see the drafts, but . . .
> For the time being deltaQ is due to friction and is equal
> to Emech which is lost in the process. The way in which
> I introduced deltaQ makes it path dependent. I plan to
> addres the first law in Model 3. The corrected draft
> for Models 1 and 2 will be posted tonight. Thanks for
> constructive comments.
> Ludwik Kowalski


I'm still worried with Delta Q notation; even if you have made it abundantly
clear that its path dependent.  The reason is possible conflict with future
notation and with calculus notation, (if its a calculus level class, maybe
it isn't though?) where the fundamental them of calculus says

Delta G = Int dG  and Delta G is path independent.

This is a minor quibble though.

It probably would surprise no one from the above that I dislike seeing

<P> = Delta W / Delta t

I always write <P> = W / Delta t in my classes.  For similar reasons.

Ludwik, how do you write the <P> equation?  And I suppose this should be
parts of both Model 1 and Model 2.

Joel R.