Re: The sign of work

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>]

> I should add that I suspect the current convention is at least partially a
> result of a practical focus on the thermodynamics of heat engines where
> net work is done *by* the system due to net heat "done" (with a wink at
> Jim Green) *on* the system.  That's not a bad reason, but it reflects too
> limited a view of the subject for my taste.

I really think that the convention for heat shoud be changed, too.
After all, the importance of hot water bottles can't be minimized.

I agree with John's first comment. I have taught both ways, and I
keep the convention I am using very near the surface. I don't refer
to "work" when I speak; I say either "the work done by the system"
or "the work done on the system", depending on which convention the
textbook for that course uses. The student must keep this in mind
constantly. Work should not become a symbol with no physical meaning,
lost among the other symbols during the arithmetic. In my experience
work usually stands out prominently in any calculation; it doesn't
get lost in a string of constants like h or k or c.

Leigh