Re: [Phys-l] Work and Energy: which first?

["Sheron Snyder" <snyders@cablespeed.com>]

I prefer a different definition of energy.  I am a former HS teacher so this 
may not satisfy C/U folks.

There is a price to pay for changing the states of matter... motion, phase, 
position are examples of what I mean by states of matter.

So my strategy was to go from forces to energy and then bring work in later. 
The student's moved easily from applying a force and then wondering what it 
'cost' to apply that force.  That was my take...So now you have my $.02 
worth.

Sheron
Retired

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Hill" <shill@wso.williams.edu>
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 6:09 PM
Subject: [Phys-l] Work and Energy: which first?


> I'm thinking about how to teach work and energy to my introductory
> class.  I like the interpretation of work as a mechanical transfer of
> energy, as I think it clears up the sign issues.  However, I've seen
> energy defined as "the ability to do work", which of course dumps us
> into a circular definition.  Outside of that, however, I'm not sure
> how to define energy in general.
>
> How do other people handle this chicken and egg problem?
>
> /
> :@-) Scott Hill
> \
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l