Re: ENERGY WITH Q (not changing definitions later)

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

Lukwik,

What you say is acceptable to me for the introductory course, I like it!

small note, in the third to last paragraph.
>  Experiments
> performed by Joule, and by others, demonstrated that
> although Q is decreasing the sum of E+Q remains constant.
> Referring to a sliding box I would invent a new name for
> the above sum, for example, mhenergy. Then I would
> generalize by saying that mhenergy is conserved in real
> experiments. That is the essence of Model 2.

Don't you mean to say "althought Q is *increasing*,

as later you say we only allow positive Q for the moment.
___________________________________________________

Do you consider neoligizing definitions changing them?

I suppose as long as the generalization doesn't invalidate the original
definition than it would be OK?

Is W in the first law such a neologism, of the F dot Ds definition?

Joel R.