In most "(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); introductionto dynamics" textbooks, why do we teach work and energy?

Consider a textbook like Hibbeler's Dynamics:

Chapter 1: kinematics of particles

Chapter 2: kinetics of particles

Chapter 3: Work Energy

Chapter 4, Impuse and Momentum

AND THEN IT REPEATS FOR BODIES

Now, I understand it is important to discuss work/energy.

I mean, yes, I think it is wise to introduce these concepts and that means using precise definitions.

But these topics have no impact on a mechanical engineering student, in the context of dynamics. They are only useful for non-dissipative systems and a quick check on solutions.

In reality, these topics arecriticalin understanding Hamilton's approach and the Principle of Virtual work and variational methods

But why do we give them such prominence in an introductory class in rigid body dynamics of particles and bodies?

One argument might be that it is worth introducing these concepts from a mechanical perspective. But why do we bother to solve more than just a few exemplary problems? Why do we raise it to the level of an entire chapter?

The topics just seem to clutter the learning for most students, of the general idea of kinematics and kinetics.

(I can sort of justify teaching impulse and momentum, sure; but I cannot seem to justify teaching work/energy other than as a short introduction to the concept before moving back to solving problems.)

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Work, energy, impulse, momentum

Have something to add?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**