Work/Energy in the introduction to dynamics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relevance and depth of teaching work and energy in introductory rigid body dynamics courses for mechanical engineers. While acknowledging the importance of these concepts for understanding Hamilton's Principle, concerns are raised about the excessive emphasis placed on work/energy topics, which may detract from students' grasp of equations of motion. It is suggested that the current pedagogical approach leads to a superficial understanding, with students viewing work/energy as an alternative rather than a fundamental principle. The conversation highlights the difficulty many have in grasping the concept of conservation of energy, which is seen as more abstract than conservation of mass. Ultimately, a deeper understanding of the principles behind the equations is deemed essential for effective learning in mechanical engineering.
observer1
Messages
81
Reaction score
11
An introductory course in rigid body dynamics for mechanical engineers introduces kinematics, then kinetis and then work/energy.

Can I ask for your opinions?

Is this necessary?

I can see the need to discuss work/energy to understand Hamilton's Principle.

But is there any reason to labor students with this topic and to the extent it is currently taught in most introductory textbooks?

As I see it, the Work/Energy/Potential Energy topic is good for cases where there is little to no dissipation. And it allows for rapid back-of-envelope checking of solutions.

But in the current pedagogy, it seems disordanatly elevated. And as a result, students see it as a whimsical alternative to getting equations (and do lots of roller coaster problems).

Yes, it is important to introduce the terms. But I have only really learned it when studying differential forms. It seems we waste too much time teaching work/enegy in the undergraduate curriculum, when they really need to understand how to extract equations of motion. Once the students get to the real world, they never use Work/energy solutions, excpet insofar as Hamilton's Principle, etc.

May I ask for your opinions on this?

(And, yes, I appear to be contradicting myself, esp. with regard to my other question on virutal work... so be it.)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The concept of conservation of energy is well known but really difficult to grasp for most people. Probably because it is too abstract (say compared to conservation of mass). So I don't think you can talk about it too much.

The best example I can think of are the endless discussions about what is more important for vehicle performance: Engine power or torque? When you fully grasp the concept of conservation of energy, this is a no brainer. But start that discussion with students in mechanical engineering and you won't hear the end of it.

You need to learn more than blindly follow mathematical procedures. You need to fully understand the guiding principles behind those equations.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?

Similar threads

Back
Top