Development of energy concepts in introductory physics courses

Arnold B. Aronsa)
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195
共Received 28 January 1999; accepted 22 April 1999兲
The work-energy theorem, derived from Newton’s second law, applies to the displacement of a
particle or the center of mass of an extended body treated as a particle. Because work, as a quantity
of energy transferred in accordance with the First Law of Thermodynamics, cannot be calculated in
general as an applied force times the displacement of center of mass, the work-energy theorem is not
a valid statement about energy transformations when work is done against a frictional force or
actions on or by deformable bodies. To use work in conservation of energy calculations, work must
be calculated as the sum of the products of forces and their corresponding displacements at locations
where the forces are applied at the periphery of the system under consideration. Failure to make this
conceptual distinction results in various errors and misleading statements widely prevalent in
textbooks, thus reinforcing confusion about energy transformations associated with the action in
everyday experience of zero-work forces such as those present in walking, running, jumping, or
accelerating a car. Without a thermodynamically valid definition of work, it is also impossible to
give a correct description of the connection between mechanical and thermal energy changes and of
dissipative effects. The situation can be simply corrected and student understanding of the energy
concepts greatly enhanced by introducing and using the concept of internal energy, that is,
articulating the First Law of Thermodynamics in a simple, phenomenological form without
unnecessary mathematical encumbrances. © 1999 American Association of Physics Teachers.

I. INTRODUCTION eration is a macroscopic, extended chunk of matter, it is ide-

In introductory physics courses, energy concepts are most
frequently introduced by the development of the ‘‘work-
energy theorem’’ for the rectilinear displacement of a par-
ticle of mass m. The starting point is Newton’s second law
F net⫽ma. In algebra-based courses, the acceleration a is
eliminated by use of the kinematic relation for uniformly
accelerated motion v 2 ⫺ v 20 ⫽2a⌬s, where the v ’s denote
initial and final velocity, and ⌬s is the rectilinear displace-
ment of the particle. The result takes the familiar form
F net⌬s⫽ 21 m v 2 ⫺ 12 m v 20 ⫽⌬ 共 21 m v 2 兲 .
In calculus-based courses, both sides of F net⫽ma are inte-
grated with respect to the position variable s, taking advan-
tage of the chain rule of differentiation replacing a by
alized as a particle, and the velocity v and the displacement
⌬s both pertain to its center of mass.
This way is perfectly reasonable for motivating the intro-
duction of the energy concepts by indicating the possibility
that numbers calculated in entirely different ways turn out to
be conserved in what otherwise appear to be unrelated
changes of state. If the treatment is left at this level, however,
the result is that students are not helped to develop a correct
definition of work as a thermodynamic quantity,1 are left
with serious misconceptions concerning work done in the
presence of friction, are not given a clear understanding of
共1兲 the justification for the extension of the conservation law to
include the transfer of heat, and are left with profound mis-
conceptions regarding energy transformations in instances
such as running, jumping, and accelerating a car that involve

冉 冊冉 冊 冉 冊
the action of zero-work forces.
dv dv ds dv The basic problem is that the work-energy theorem is re-
a⬅ ⫽ ⫽v . 共2兲 ally a dynamical relation, derived from Newton’s second
dt ds dt ds
law, and cannot be a truly general energy statement. There
The result is the more sophisticated form are three independent conservation relations in classical

冕 s0
s
F net ds⫽⌬ 共 21 m v 2 兲 .
In either case, the left-hand side of the equation is given the
name ‘‘work done by the net force,’’ and the quantity
(1/2)m v 2 is given the name ‘‘kinetic energy of the particle.’’
The work done by the net force does not disappear; it is
‘‘conserved’’ by being ‘‘converted’’ into kinetic energy. The
ideas are then extended to include the presence of other
forces: work is done by or against forces; forces not under-
going displacement 共or acting orthogonally to the displace-
ment兲 do no work and are called ‘‘zero-work’’ forces; work
done against the gravitational force is ‘‘stored,’’ and is called
‘‘potential energy’’ and can be retrieved as kinetic energy or
by elevating another object, etc. If the object under consid-
共3兲
physics. The first is the equation of continuity or conserva-
tion of mass. The second conservation law, that of conserva-
tion of momentum, is the grand generalization underlying
Newtonian dynamics. If the general law of conservation of
energy in classical physics could be derived from the dy-
namical equations, it would be a tautology and would not
constitute a third independent condition, as it actually is. The
law of conservation of energy cannot be derived. Like the
other conservation laws, it is arrived at by induction from
limited observations and is ultimately accepted because no
violations are observed.
In the 17th century Leibniz and Huygens both pointed to
what we now regard as aspects of energy conservation in the
mechanical behavior of particles: Leibniz called attention to
the connection between what we now call kinetic and poten-

1063 Am. J. Phys. 67 共12兲, December 1999 © 1999 American Association of Physics Teachers 1063
tial energy changes in motion under the influence of gravity
while Huygens empirically discovered conservation of ‘‘vis
viva’’ (m v 2 ) in defining elastic collisions. The modern ap-
preciation of conservation of energy did not emerge, how-
ever, until the middle of the 19th century through the work
of Mayer and Joule. Why not? It required recognition of the
connection between work and transfer of heat, creation of the
concept of internal energy, and the recognition of how prop-
erly to generalize the definition of work and apply it to ex-
tended bodies before it became possible for Helmholtz to
articulate and illustrate applications of the First Law of Ther-
modynamics as we know it today. It is not possible to help
students form a clear, correct, and logical idea of the energy
concepts without retracing some of this sequence of thought,
albeit it should be done without unnecessary confusion in
unraveling useless historical details.
The work-energy theorem has extremely limited applica-
bility. Because it gives correct relations for changes of state
of a particle, it hints at the energy concepts and therefore
constitutes a perfectly reasonable starting point, but a con-
ceptually sound development is not carried through if mat-
ters are left at this juncture. Trying to delay a definitive dis-
cussion and finesse the conceptual problem by making
assertions about integrals of conservative and nonconserva-
tive forces along closed paths 共and then leaving matters up in
the air兲 is simply black magic to the great majority of stu-
dents. Such delay is also inappropriate for audiences in the
usual algebra-based course.
The generalization to conservation of energy in a wider
range of phenomena is not difficult to achieve. It only re-
quires articulation of what amounts to the First Law of Ther-
modynamics. This generalization necessitates a proper defi-
nition of work as well as introduction of the concept of
internal energy. This is the only way that dissipative effects
can be correctly incorporated, ‘‘heat’’ rationalized as a form
of energy, and the accelerative effect of zero-work forces
correctly interpreted. How these insights might be achieved
in introductory courses is outlined in the following.
There are basic epistemological insights that are also of
fundamental importance. It is worth quoting at this point
what Feynman says so lucidly and compellingly in his intro-
duction of energy concepts:2
There is a fact, or if you wish, a law governing all natural
phenomena that are known to date. There is no known
exception to this law—it is exact as far as we know. The
law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there
is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not
change in the manifold changes which nature undergoes.
That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical
principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which
does not change when something happens. It is not a de-
scription of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a
strange fact that we can calculate some number and when
we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calcu-
late the number again, it is the same.
There are several crucial aspects of learning and under-
standing embedded in this beautiful but cryptic statement.
Energy is not concrete; it is not a material substance; it is
given meaning through the calculation of numbers. 共Many
students coming out of introductory physics courses view
both momentum and energy as though they were
substances—something like the imponderable fluids of phlo-
giston, caloric, and electric virtue of 18th century science.兲
1064 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 67, No. 12, December 1999
Furthermore, we must learn or discover how to define and
calculate the numbers that turn out to be conserved; the cal-
culations are not to be derived and are not immediately ob-
vious on observation of relevant phenomena. Genuine under-
standing on the part of students involves assimilation of such
insights, not just manipulating the formulas in end-of-chapter
examples.
Various aspects of the pedagogical problems summarized
in this paper have been discussed previously.3 The following
presentation is intended as a summary which might help in-
terested readers eliminate a conceptual flaw that is widely
prevalent in introductory physics courses and pave the way
for a better understanding of thermodynamics.
II. MISCONCEPTIONS INCULCATED THROUGH
INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE
WORK-ENERGY THEOREM
It is all too easy to implant misconceptions through care-
less or incorrect use of the work-energy theorem. Consider
the following examples.
Consider a system defined to be a box of mass m being
accelerated by a horizontal force P along a level floor against
an opposing frictional force f . For a displacement ⌬s c.m. of
the center of mass of the box, the work-energy theorem says
that
P⌬s c.m.⫺ f ⌬s c.m.⫽⌬ 共 21 m v c.m.
2
兲. 共4兲
This relation implies that f ⌬s c.m. is a quantity of work
done against the frictional force and is thus taken out of the
system 共work done by the system on its surroundings.兲 Such
an interpretation is frequently given explicitly and sometimes
left implied in textbook presentations. If energy is indeed
conserved, what happens to this quantity of work? If the
displacement takes place without change of velocity because
P and f are equal in magnitude and opposed in direction, the
net work done on the system seems to be zero. If the net
work is zero, how does one account for the temperature in-
crease taking place in the box? The trouble is that f ⌬s c.m. is
not a quantity of work or energy in the thermodynamic sense
even though the quantity P⌬s c.m. is indeed the thermody-
namic work done on the system by the force P. Not every
product of force and displacement is necessarily a quantity of
work which is thermodynamically conserved, and the quan-
tity f ⌬s c.m. is an illustration. Some authors3 have suggested
calling such quantities ‘‘pseudo-work,’’ but this is not the
point at which to enter into discussion of names.
The trouble is that work associated with the action of the
frictional force is not being consistently calculated in such a
way as to satisfy Feynman’s criterion. This calculation of
work done by or against the frictional force f ⌬s c.m. does not
‘‘work’’ in the sense that it does not emerge as a conserved
quantity. How must work be calculated? Experience shows
that the useful operational definition of work must be devel-
oped along the lines discussed by P. W. Bridgman in his
careful, insightful, and thorough analysis in The Nature of
Thermodynamics:4
Turn now to an examination of the W of the First Law.
This W means the total mechanical work received by the
region inside the boundary from the region outside 关or
delivered to the region outside from the region inside兴. As
in the case of 关heat transfer兴 Q, this work is done across
Arnold B. Arons 1064
 the boundary, and the evaluation of W demands the post-
ing of sentries at all points of the boundary, and the sum-
ming of their contributions. In the simple cases usually
considered in elementary discussions, the work received
by the inside from the outside is of the simple sort typified
by the motion of stretched cords or of simple linear piston
rods. Our sentry can adequately report this sort of thing in
terms of finite forces acting at points and finite displace-
ments. In general, however, there will be contact of the
material outside over finite regions of the boundary, and
we become involved in the stresses and strains of elasticity
theory.
关Bridgman goes on to mention the ‘‘infelicities that result
when we apply the notion of work to the sliding of two
bodies on each other with friction.’’兴4
To emerge as a conserved quantity, work must be calcu-
lated by summing the product of forces and their correspond-
ing displacements over the periphery or boundary of the sys-
tem which has been defined. For example, for a compressed
spring, we must calculate the integral over the displacement
of the end of the spring and not over the displacement of its
center of mass. However, the quantity f ⌬s c.m. does not sat-
isfy the thermodynamic definition of work because the fric-
tional force acting on the bottom of the box does not undergo
a displacement ⌬s c.m. , but undergoes displacements which
we have no way of knowing or calculating. 共This is what
Bridgman refers to in his remark about ‘‘infelicities’’ in the
above quotation.兲 It is clearly incorrect to describe Eq. 共4兲 as
an energy equation even though it is a perfectly correct dy-
namical relation. In any situation involving friction, we are
confronted with the complexity intrinsic to the behavior of
an extended body and the deformations it undergoes. We
cannot treat all extended bodies as particles.
Another illustration of an incorrect interpretation of the
work-energy theorem arises for a system in which a person
of mass m, standing on a skate board, pushes himself 共her-
self兲 away from a wall by applying a normal force with av-
erage magnitude N̄ while the center of mass is displaced by
⌬s c.m. . For this situation, the work-energy theorem gives the
following relation, neglecting friction:
N̄⌬s c.m.⫽⌬ 共 21 m v c.m.
2
兲. 共5兲
It is tempting to interpret Eq. 共5兲 as a statement about
energy transformations, as is frequently done. Although the
kinetic energy of the body increases, the quantity N̄⌬s c.m.
cannot be an amount of work done on the system by the
surroundings. The point of application of the normal force
undergoes zero displacement and thus the normal force is a
zero-work force. We are dealing with a deformable body that
cannot be treated as a particle with respect to energy trans-
formations. Although Eq. 共5兲 is a perfectly correct dynamical
relation, it should not be interpreted as an energy relation.
The kinetic energy acquired by the body comes from elec-
trochemical processes interior to the body and not from the
wall. It becomes important for students to realize that, al-
though a force such as N̄ can accelerate a body, it does not
necessarily do work on the body.
An essentially identical situation, except for the additional
change of potential energy, occurs when a person jumps ver-
tically upward. The normal force exerted by the floor on the
person is a zero-work force and should not be interpreted as
directly providing the kinetic and potential energy that re-
1065 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 67, No. 12, December 1999
sult from application of the force. Similarly, the frictional
force that accelerates a car through action on the tires is a
zero-work force 共in the absence of slipping兲, and, although it
accelerates the car, it does no work. The kinetic energy im-
parted to the car originates in the chemical processes taking
place in the engine. Similar statements can be made about
the actions and energy transformations involved in walking
or running.
Given the fact that the work-energy theorem does not
yield correct statements about energy transformation in the
case of friction and effects on deformable bodies 共even
though it is a correct dynamical relation兲, how can one de-
vise clear and correct statements about energy? The resolu-
tion will be discussed in Sec. IV.
III. WORK AND HEAT
If limited exclusively to mechanical effects, the idea of
energy has relatively little power or utility, and, although it
can be used to shortcut analysis of some frictionless situa-
tions, its introduction in such restricted context certainly
does not convey to students the over-arching nature of the
synthesis it embodies. The insight that first extends the con-
texts is the connection to thermal effects, that is, heat trans-
fer. Beyond that comes the extension to electrical phenom-
ena and to changes in state in general.
Although the distinction between heat and temperature can
be conveyed to children at elementary school level, this is
rarely competently done even though excellent curricular
materials exist for this purpose.5 It would be well if college
and university teachers were aware that many students come
to their classes using the terms synonymously as teachers
have done in school. An examination of some fundamental,
everyday phenomena and interactions can dispel this confu-
sion; such phenomenological thinking enhances the perspec-
tive of even those students who can make the verbal
distinction.6
Let us assume that ‘‘heat transfer’’ has been adequately
defined and dealt with along with the concepts of elementary
calorimetry and the definition of a unit of measurement such
as the calorie. What then is the connection between heat and
work? What was the nature of the revolution brought about
by Joule? How do we extend the energy idea to articulate the
over-arching conservation law?
What Joule’s experiments on dissipation of work showed
was the following: When work is dissipated through friction,
the result is a change in the thermal state of the system on
which the work is done even though no heat is transferred to
the system through contact with a higher temperature body.
One can calculate the amount of heat transferred that would
have produced the same change in state. Experimentally, if
the amount of work dissipated is doubled, the amount of heat
that would need to be transferred to produce the same change
in state is doubled; that is, there is a linear relation between
the two quantities. This is how it came to be recognized that
both mechanical and thermal effects could be united under
the common rubric of ‘‘energy.’’
It is frequently stated by teachers and textbooks that, in the
case of frictional dissipation ‘‘work is converted into heat.’’
This is a very unfortunate and misleading locution because it
explicitly gives the students the impression that transfer of
heat occurs in frictional dissipation, and this misconception
persists into more advanced study. 共This is an instance in
which a misconception is implanted by teachers and text-
Arnold B. Arons 1065
books and is not entirely a preconception drawn from prior
experience.兲 Frictional dissipation is an adiabatic process in
which no heat is transferred even though temperature
changes occur. 关See the definition of heat transfer after Eq.
共6兲.兴
In the physics education literature, some teachers have
asked why one should bother any longer with a unit such as
the calorie. Because heat is a form of energy, why not just
measure everything in joules? If one is content with simply
throwing to students the assertion that heat is a form of en-
ergy and having them accept and memorize the assertion,
dropping the calorie would be adequate. If, however, one
wishes students to understand where the assertion comes
from—how we know that we can treat heat as a form of
energy—it is necessary to tell the Joule story correctly. For
this purpose it is necessary to have independent measure-
ments of mechanical and thermal effects before the synthesis
can be achieved. The calorie becomes indispensable.
Given the fact that saying that ‘‘work is converted into
heat’’ is conceptually inconsistent and misleading, how can
the description be rectified and ideas of energy and energy
conservation be made clear and unambiguous?
IV. RESOLUTION OF THE DIFFICULTIES
All of the above-mentioned difficulties and inconsistencies
can be finessed by avoiding situations involving deformable
bodies, sticking to point masses, and saying very little about
friction. It seems a shame, however, to give students so nar-
row and restricted a view of the concept of energy and its
conservation, especially in those introductory courses that
are terminal, as far as physics is concerned, for the students
taking them. Furthermore, recognizing what happens phe-
nomenologically in everyday experiences such as running,
jumping, accelerating a car, and confronting frictional ef-
fects, gives personal relevance, richness, and greater mean-
ing to the physical concepts not attainable in the restricted
development.
All of the difficulties discussed in Secs. II and III can be
resolved by one simple device: invention of the concept of
internal energy and articulation of the First Law of Thermo-
dynamics. This is exactly the ingredient Helmholtz supplied
in the 19th century as the significance of the insights of
Mayer and Joule were being assimilated. At the first level,
the introduction can be purely phenomenological; the math-
ematical apparatus of exact and inexact differentials, path
dependent and path independent integrals, appropriate in for-
mal courses in thermodynamics, is completely unnecessary.
The invention requires the following ingredients: 共1兲 care-
ful definition of the concept of ‘‘system;’’ 共2兲 definition of
‘‘state of a system’’ and recognition of ‘‘change of state of a
system;’’ and 共3兲 association of the change of state with
change in ‘‘internal energy of the system,’’ denoted by the
symbol ⌬U. Internal energy includes all of the different
forms of energy that students are beginning to recognize in
the initial explorations: kinetic, potential, thermal, electrical,
chemical, etc. Potential energy has subheadings such as
gravitational, electrical, deformational 共elastic compression
or extension兲, etc.
Inductive reasoning from the initial limited range of expe-
rience suggests that
⌬U⫽Q⫹W, 共6兲
1066 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 67, No. 12, December 1999
where Q denotes the amount of heat transferred to the sys-
tem 共positive兲 or taken out of the system 共negative兲 through
contact with higher or lower temperature systems, and W
denotes the amount of work put into 共positive兲 or taken out
of 共negative兲 the system by external forces around its periph-
ery 共calculated in accordance with Bridgman’s operational
definition兲.
Note that Eq. 共6兲 cannot be ‘‘derived’’ from some prior
source—any more than Newton’s laws can be derived. It is
an inductive guess at the order that obtains in nature. It at-
tains the status of ‘‘law’’ only because, in subsequent accu-
mulation of experience, it has always been possible to dis-
cover a ‘‘successful’’ way to calculate work, and because no
violation has ever been observed.
Now let us apply Eq. 共6兲 to the various cases considered in
Secs. II and III
The acceleration of a box along the floor in the presence
of friction. Because we have no way of knowing the dis-
placements associated with elements of frictional force act-
ing on the bottom of the box, we cannot calculate the work
done by the frictional force on the box, and it is not appro-
priate to take the box alone as our system. We can, however,
sweep this difficulty under the rug by taking our system to be
the box and the floor.
For this system, there is no transfer of heat 共even though
there is a temperature increase in both the box and the floor兲
so Q⫽0. The work put into the system is that done by the
external force P and is thus W⫽ P⌬s c.m. . The change in
energy of the system has two components: a change in ther-
mal internal energy of the box and floor, denoted by
⌬U therm , and the kinetic energy change of the box, denoted
by ⌬U kin . We thus have from Eq. 共6兲
⌬U therm⫹⌬U kin⫽0⫹ P⌬s c.m. 共7兲
or, because ⌬U kin⫽⌬( 21 m v c.m.
2
),
⌬U therm⫽ P⌬s c.m.⫺⌬ 共 21 m v c.m.
2
兲. 共8兲
In other words, the change in thermal internal energy of
the box-floor system is equal to the external work done by
the force P minus the kinetic energy imparted to the box. If
the displacement is made at uniform velocity without change
in kinetic energy, all the work done by the external force is
converted into thermal internal energy, raising the tempera-
ture of the box and the floor. No heat has been transferred.
This is a correct description of the energy transformations.
Equation 共4兲 remains a perfectly correct dynamical equation,
but is not interpretable as a statement about energy transfor-
mations.
Standing on a skate board and pushing away from a wall.
In this case we take the system to be our entire body. There
is no heat transfer, and W⫽0 because N̄ is a zero-work
force. The energy changes are all internal. If we take the
thermal change to be negligible, we are left with the change
in kinetic energy of our body and the biochemical changes
taking place within our muscles. Equation 共6兲 gives
⌬U biochem⫹ 21 m v c.m.
2
⫽0, 共9兲
or
⌬U biochem⫽⫺ 21 m v c.m.
2
. 共10兲
In other words, a positive change 共increase兲 in the kinetic
energy imparted to our body comes at the expense of a nega-
Arnold B. Arons 1066
tive change 共decrease兲 in the biochemical internal energy as-
sociated with the muscular action we have required. Thus
Eq. 共5兲 remains a correct dynamical relation which is not
interpretable as an energy relation, while Eq. 共10兲 is the cor-
rect statement about energy transformation.
In the case of jumping vertically upward, we have the
same analysis 共taking the system to be our body and the
earth兲 with only the added ingredient of a change in internal
gravitational potential energy of the system.
A similar situation arises for an accelerating car. In the
absence of slipping between the tires and the road, the dy-
namical relation is
f ⌬s c.m.⫽⌬ 共 21 m v c.m.
2
兲, 共11兲
where f is a zero-work force. Taking ⌬U chem as the internal
energy change stemming from the utilization of fuel and
⌬U mech as the kinetic energy change imparted to the internal
moving parts, Eq. 共6兲, with Q and W both equal to zero,
gives
⌬U chem⫽⫺⌬U mech⫺⌬ 共 21 m v c.m.
2
兲 共12兲
with an interpretation exactly like that of Eq. 共10兲.
A ball of putty of mass m, moving horizontally from left to
right with speed v 0 , strikes a vertical wall to which it sticks
in a perfectly inelastic collision. Taking the positive direc-
tion to the right, the dynamical relation is
⫺N̄⌬s c.m.⫽⌬ 共 21 m v c.m.
2
兲 ⫽0⫺ 21 m v 0,c.m.
2
. 共13兲
Although Eq. 共13兲 has the appearance of an energy relation,
it is not so thermodynamically, because N̄ is a zero-work
force. 共The displacements taking place in the plastic flow at
the putty-wall boundary are parallel to the wall and are there-
fore orthogonal to the normal forces at the points of applica-
tion.兲 Because no work is done on either the ball or the wall,
and because we can take the heat transfer from the ball to the
wall to be negligible over the duration of the collision, we
can take the ball alone as the system under consideration. For
this system, Q and W are both zero, and the energy equation
becomes
⌬U therm⫹⌬U mech⫽0, 共14兲
⌬U therm⫽⫺⌬U mech⫽⫺ 关 0⫺ 21 m v 20 兴 ⫽ 21 m v 20 . 共15兲
All of the kinetic energy of the ball is converted directly into
thermal internal energy.
There is no dynamical relation for the Joule paddle wheel
experiment for measuring the mechanical equivalent of heat.
The internal energy change of the water–paddle-wheel sys-
tem is entirely thermal (⌬U therm), there is no transfer of heat
(Q⫽0), and W represents the amount of work put into the
system and dissipated. Equation 共6兲 gives
⌬U therm⫽W. 共16兲
The change in thermal internal energy is exactly the same as
the change that would have been produced by the transfer of
1067 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 67, No. 12, December 1999
an amount of heat to the system 共under the same conditions
of constant pressure兲 equivalent in energy to the amount of
work. Work has not been ‘‘converted into heat;’’ it has been
converted directly into thermal internal energy without trans-
fer of heat.
It is worth noting that the case of dissipation of electrical
work in a resistor is exactly analogous. If our system consists
of a current carrying resistor immersed in a water bath, we
have
⌬U therm⫽W elec⫽I 2 R⌬t. 共17兲
The interpretation is exactly the same as that in the paddle
wheel experiment.
Students’ horizons can be broadened in an interesting way
by inviting them to visualize and think about what might
happen in other Q⫽0 processes in which the quantity of
work is not dissipated, but might be either positive or nega-
tive, as in the expansion or compression of air in a tire pump.
In this case, Eq. 共16兲 still applies, but the phenomenology is
very different. Closed and pat answers need not be immedi-
ately provided; this is something worth thinking, visualizing,
and arguing about.
V. SUMMARY
One would hope that textbook authors and teachers would
adopt some approach which avoids the errors and miscon-
ceptions stemming from incorrect application and interpreta-
tion of the work-energy theorem. An examination in this
spirit would give students who continue to more advanced
courses a valuable head start for better understanding of the
formal statement of the First Law of Thermodynamics, the
significance of exact and inexact differentials, and the related
significance of path dependent and path independent inte-
grals. It would also give students, especially those for whom
the introductory course is terminal, a far more secure phe-
nomenological grasp of the meaning of energy and of the
extent and nature of the conservation law.
a兲
Electronic mail: arons@dirac.phys.washington.edu
1
For example, why must work in compressing a spring be calculated by
using the displacement of the end of the spring rather than displacement of
the center of mass of the spring? In the derivation presented in Eq. 共3兲, the
displacement entering into the calculation of work was supposed to be that
2
of the center of mass of the extended object.
R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on
Physics 共Addison–Wesley, Reading, MA, 1965兲, Vol. I, p. 4-1.
3
See, for example, H. Erlichson, ‘‘Work and kinetic energy for an automo-
bile coming to a stop,’’ Am. J. Phys. 45, 769–769 共1977兲; C. M. Penchina,
‘‘Pseudowork-energy principle,’’ ibid. 46, 295–296 共1978兲; B. A. Sher-
wood, ‘‘Pseudowork and real work,’’ ibid. 51, 597–602 共1983兲; A. B.
Arons, Teaching Introductory Physics 共Wiley, New York, 1997兲, Part I,
Chap. 5, pp. 135–161.
4
P. W. Bridgman, The Nature of Thermodynamics 共Harvard U.P., Cam-
bridge, MA, 1941兲, Chap. 1, p. 30.
5
See elementary school curricula such as ESS 共Elementary Science Study兲
or SCIS 共Science Curriculum Improvement Study兲, both published by
Delta Education, Nashua, NH.
6
For specific examples, see A. B. Arons, in Ref. 3 Part I, Sec. 5.5, pp.
139–140.
Arnold B. Arons 1067