Re: work, energy, etc

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

I can't believe this, but then that's probably because I haven't been reading this
thread closely.

I would think one should introduce concepts first that are easily apprehended
(original meaning).  i.e. work first, as it's so kinesthetic, while energy is
rather nebulous.

Am I missing it?

Panzers,

bc

P.s. I second Ludwik's question.



Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> "John S. Denker" was quoting John Barrer:
>
> > > I think this (Modeling) approach does a
> > > much better job of helping beginning
> > > students learn the fundamental concepts.
>
> What I remember (from being a participant of the Modeling
> workshop several years ago) is the idea of introducing energy
> BEFORE introducing work. I would very much like to know
> if this approach is still promoted and how successful it was?
> An outline of conceptual steps, in the order in which they are
> introduced to students, would be worth displaying.
> Ludwik Kowalski
>
> > Is there any reason for thinking so?
> >
> > Should we tell beginning English students to say "aint" and "they is",
> > knowing that it is bad English, and hoping that they will unlearn it
> > later?  By the same token, what is the point of teaching beginning students
> > bad physics, for no discernible reason, when better approaches are available?
> >
> > > And you never
> > > have to use the hated word "flow" to describe the
> > > processes.
> >
> > Hatred is not a substitute for careful reasoning.  If flow is unphysical,
> > somebody needs to explain why.  See also
> >    http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/physics/conservative-flow.htm