Talk:Work (physics)/Archives/2010/April
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A question for all Wiki physicists
This article presently contains a sub-section called Mechanical energy. I suggest the presence of this sub-section is misleading and entirely inappropriate in this article.
The sub-section begins The mechanical energy of a body is that part of its total energy which is subject to change by mechanical work. It includes kinetic energy and potential energy. The concept of potential energy is an alternative to the concept of mechanical work. Whenever attempting to solve a problem in mechanics we must choose to use the work-energy theorem or the principle of conservation of mechanical energy. (The principle of conservation of mechanical energy is only applicable where conservative forces are at play.) They are two different approaches. When the resultant force on an object does positive work, it is the kinetic energy of that object that increases, not the mechanical energy and certainly not the potential energy. It is misleading for the article on Work (physics) to contain a sub-section on mechanical energy.
This sub-section also contains the following sentence: For instance, if an object with constant mass is in free fall, the total energy of position 1 will equal that of position 2. Seeing this article is about mechanical work, this sentence invites the enquiry if the object is in free fall, what about the effect of the work done by the weight of the object?
This article is about mechanical work and should not confuse the reader by making mention of potential energy or the concept of conservation of total mechanical energy. Do we agree? Dolphin51 (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. It looks weird to me. --Michael C. Price talk 21:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)