| 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] |
I'm pretty much with Rick on this one. IMO it is highly
counterproductive to talk about "negative acceleration" because it
wrongly suggests that a vector can somehow BE "negative" and confuses
direction (an inherent property of a vector) with algebraic sign (a
property of its components in an arbitrary reference system.)
I find it useful to emphasize the points Rick made about what happens
when the angle between the acceleration and velocity vectors is 0
("speeding up"), 90 degrees ("turning"), or 180 degrees ("slowing
down") and then to go on to point out, more generally, that when that
angle is acute we have "turning and speeding up" and when that angle
is obtuse we have "turning and slowing down."
I don't, however, think that we can stamp out the use of the word
"deceleration," which, in common parlance, means "slowing down." So
I think we need to make sure that students understand how to
translate that common interpretation into the language of physics.
Quantitatively, we have
deceleration == - d/dt | v_vec |
so that a "deceleration of 3 mph/s" means that the magnitude of the
object's velocity is decreasing by 3 mph each second and "a
deceleration of - 3 mph/s" means that the object is "not
decelerating"--i.e., "speeding up" at a rate of 3 mph each second.
Although I certainly wouldn't want to belabor the point, it should be
perfectly clear what we mean when we say "the acceleration is 10 m/
s^2, west and the deceleration is 6 m/s^2."
John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona
Rick Tarara wrote:
I don't like either term. In our usage, accelerations in the
direction of
motion cause object to increase speed while accelerations opposite the
direction of motion cause objects to decrease speed. Accelerations
at right
angles to the direction of motion cause a change in direction.
Accelerations at any angles other than 0, 90,180,270 are dealt with by
breaking the motion into orthogonal components and analyzing the
accelerations along each of those directions with the above rules.
All of that is a mouthful and requires some considerable effort to
ingrain,
but it eliminates a lot of other problems, not the least of which
is the
freedom to choose positive/negative directions in any particular
situation/problem.
in response to Peter, who wrote:
I instituted the use of "Reading Questions" in my classes this
year, and I
am getting some of the most interesting questions this semester
from my
students.
This is one that I've not run into before... A student has asked
which is
proper terminology: "Negative Acceleration" or "Deceleration".
Of the textbooks on my shelf, about half are for the first and the
other
half seem to use both interchangeably. Interestingly, those that say
"Negative Acceleration" is the proper term are all of a more recent
vintage.
Is one or the other really more used/acceptable?
A. JOHN "Slo" MALLINCKRODT
Lead Guitarist, Out-Laws of Physics
http://outlawsofphysics.com
Professor of Physics (Ret'd), Cal Poly Pomona
http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm
Consulting Editor, AMERICAN JOURNAL of PHYSICS
http://www.kzoo.edu/ajp
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l