Talk:Work (physics)/Archives/2005/April

Redirected Mechanical energy here

Merged material from Mechanical energy into section with the same name. Also edited the article: changed some formulaes to "standard" quantity symbols, added new sub-sections "Definition", "Types of work" and "Conservation of mechanical energy". Removed stub-status, removed "in the direction of the force" (there is no word of this in my two independent school physics books), made som small adjustments to text. But check the "Conservation of mechanical energy" section. I am not completely sure if there is a more general definition to this. Thechamelon 01:07, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) Re-edited 01:07, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC).

Unmerge?

I don't think that this merge was warranted. The old mechanical energy stub was a stub not because there was nothing to say on the topic, but because nobody had bothered to say it. For instance, the treatment of conservation of mechanical energy has no place in an article on work. --Smack (talk) 21:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd disagree. I suggested the merger that Thechamelon has effected - for the reasons mentioned at the top of this Talk page by Mkweise, that work and energy are usually synonymous in modern physics. Of course, it's possible that the equation of work and energy can be clarified further in this article. Thanks, Ian Cairns 21:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. I would personally prefer to split this article in Work (physics) and Conservation of energy since these two headlines would cover any topic within. I think I could write more on this if it was a more general topic. Furthermore, mechanical work is only a specific type of work in physics. The Work (physics) page could have info on electrical work too. The only reason that I moved it was that it seemed that some wikis wanted to... If I did something I shouldn't (out of guidelines etc.) please tell me. I haven't seen any rule on merging yet? Thechamelon 13:43, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, this merge rests on two premises: that work and energy are synonymous, and that energy and its conservation are indistinguishable. In general, this is true, but in the special case of strictly mechanical work, it is not. Mechanical work and mechanical energy are not equivalent, because of the possibility of dissipative forces.

Actually, there's a third premise: that it's not necessary to maintain separate articles on closely related concepts like work and energy. I could argue that each page should be at least a stub, so that it can be properly defined. Redirecting people from conservation of mechanical energy to mechanical work is a bit of a reach. --Smack (talk) 04:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)