Work and Inertial Frames

Richard Kaufman

Citation: The Physics Teacher 55, 561 (2017);

View online: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5011835
View Table of Contents: http://aapt.scitation.org/toc/pte/55/9
Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers

Articles you may be interested in

Pendulum Underwater – An Approach for Quantifying Viscosity
The Physics Teacher 55, 555 (2017); 10.1119/1.5011833

Optimizing the Launch of a Projectile to Hit a Target

The Physics Teacher 55, 528 (2017); 10.1119/1.5011825

Elastic and Inelastic Collisions of a Ball with a Wood Block

The Physics Teacher 55, 467 (2017); 10.1119/1.5008338

A New Look at an Old Activity: Resonance Tubes Used to Teach Resonance

The Physics Teacher 55, 546 (2017); 10.1119/1.5011831

Modeling as an Anchoring Scientific Practice for Explaining Friction Phenomena

The Physics Teacher 55, 570 (2017); 10.1119/1.5011837

A New Resonance Tube

The Physics Teacher 55, 544 (2017); 10.1119/1.5011830
Work and Inertial Frames
Richard Kaufman, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA

A
fairly recent paper1 resolves a large discrepancy in the on a moving train as observed by two inertial observers, the
internal energy utilized to fire a cannon as calculated ball-thrower on the train and an observer on the ground.
by two inertial observers. Earth and its small reaction These observers calculate very different amounts of work
velocity must be considered in the system so that the change because the ground observer calculates that the ball-thrower
in kinetic energy is calculated correctly. This paper uses a car applies a force over a larger distance due to the train’s move-
in a similar scenario, but considers the work done by forces ment.5 Tefft and Tefft only consider the work that is done on
acting over distances. An analysis of the system must include the ball, not Earth.
all energy interactions, including the work done on the car The Tefft and Tefft example is similar to Example 4 in
and especially the (negative) work done on Earth in a moving Galili and Kaplan. Here a boy throws a stone while standing
reference frame. This shows the importance of considering on a large rolling platform, and the authors point out that “the
the force on Earth and the distance Earth travels. For calcula- effort applied by the boy is entirely invested in the change of
tion of work in inertial reference frames, the center of mass the kinetic energy of the ‘infinitely massive’ platform (which
perspective is shown to be useful. We also consider the energy has been accelerated).”
requirements to efficiently accelerate a mass among interact- In this paper, we consider a similar example using two in-
ing masses. ertial observers who witness a car pushed along a road at con-
stant acceleration. We will show that the observers calculate
Introduction the same amount of work when a complete systems approach
There is an apparent paradox that occurs when trying to includes the car, Earth, the forces acting on them, and the dis-
determine energy requirements in certain problems involving tance through which the forces act. As with Galili and Kaplan,
inertial reference frames. Galili and Kaplan1 describe the par- all interactions are accounted for, but an accounting is done
adox, and address it, using the example of a cannon and can- using work as opposed to kinetic energy.
nonball. For ease of reference, their example and equations
are reconstructed in an online appendix.2 Following the firing The car example using the work-kinetic
of the cannonball, two inertial observers calculate different energy
changes in internal energy (i.e., fuel utilized) unless they cor- Consider a car that is pushed by an extending-arm mecha-
rectly account for the kinetic energy imparted to the massive nism that is rigidly attached to Earth at one end.6 The car, with
Earth. Galili and Kaplan use the fact that (1) the change in mass m, starts at rest and undergoes a constant acceleration a
internal energy must be the same (i.e., invariant) for these ref- to a final velocity of v. The car will be treated as a frictionless
erence frames, (2) the change in kinetic energy is equal to the block. The extending-arm mechanism, with negligible mass,
change in internal energy, (3) the system as a whole, including pushes the car along Earth, with mass M. An observer in the
the “infinitely large mass” Earth, must be considered, and (4) ground frame S0, which is the frame of Earth, witnesses the
the exchange of momentum between Earth and the cannon- event as shown at the top of Fig. 1. Hereafter, the extending-
ball is significant to the problem. They state:

Neglect of the near-infinite mass in the energy

balance may misrepresent the interaction and
mislead the learner. In general, interaction will
change the kinetic energy of all interacting part-
ners, no matter how big they are. Only by taking
this into account does the energy conservation
become observer-invariant.3

While Galili and Kaplan consider the change in internal

energy due to the change in kinetic energy, Tefft and Tefft4
use an equivalent equation, namely the work-kinetic energy
theorem,

W = K, (1)

where the work W is equal to the change in kinetic energy

K. Tefft and Tefft use the example of a man throwing a ball Fig. 1. Car accelerated by a mechanism.

DOI: 10.1119/1.5011835 The Physics Teacher ◆ Vol. 55, December 2017 561
arm mechanism, which provides constant acceleration and is S frame:
not a spring, will be referred to as “mechanism.”
Another observer views the system while moving to the
left with a velocity u in the S frame, which is shown at the
bottom of Fig. 1. This observer witnesses the car (and Earth)
move to the right with an initial velocity of u. The car acceler-
ates to a final velocity of u + v.
The car and Earth interact with each other since the
mechanism pushes on both of them. The work done on both
is internal to the system, i.e., internal work. This work, which
is the product of force (mass × acceleration) and distance, will
be calculated for each frame following some preliminaries.
Since the mass of the mechanism that accelerates the car
is negligible, the force f of the mechanism on the car has the
same magnitude (but opposite direction) as the force f of the
mechanism on Earth. For a constant acceleration a, the equa-
tion that relates the final velocity vf, the initial velocity v0, and And using the conservation of momentum: mv – Mve = 0,
the distance traveled d is
(5)
vf2 = v02 + 2ad. (2)
Both frames calculate the same total amount of work:
For Earth, we will use the reaction velocity ve that was used
by Galili and Kaplan. This is the very small velocity that is
imparted to Earth by the force of the mechanism. Galili and This shows that the work observed in both reference frames is
Kaplan use the conservation of momentum, which we will the same when the full system of Earth and the car are consid-
use in the S ­frame: ered. The last term on the right-hand side (1/2 Mve2 ) can be
ignored since it is very small. Note that neglecting terms like
mv – Mve = 0. (3) this is in keeping with Galili and Kaplan whereby large values
that are multiplied by the square of very small values are ne-
We use the subscript c for the car and the subscript e for glected. The forces and distances are shown in Fig. 2.
Earth. The acceleration of the car, ac, is the same in both iner- The work of the mechanism on Earth is negative. This is
tial reference frames; the small acceleration of the Earth, ae, is apparent in the S frame since
the same in both inertial reference frames.

Ground frame S0, where v0 = 0: which is negative since u >> ve. Earth decelerates by the force
of the mechanism; therefore, ae is negative. This force oppos-
es the motion of Earth throughout the entire displacement of
Earth de, which is not small in the S frame. This displacement
of Earth is due to the movement of the S frame as it travels at
(4)

Fig. 2. Forces and distances in each reference frame.

562 The Physics Teacher ◆ Vol. 55, December 2017

constant velocity u; we neglect the reaction acceleration of relative to the system center of mass.9 Here the work wext is
Earth ae due to the force of the mechanism since it is so small frame invariant.10
(similar to the small reaction velocity ve of Galili and Kaplan): Although we have just considered the change in kinetic
energy from the center of mass perspective, we can also
(6) use this perspective to calculate work based on the distance
through which a force acts. All inertial frames observe the
Again, this calculation for the displacement of Earth de is sig- same displacement of an individual mass relative to the center
nificant (not small) in the S frame. Therefore, it can be noted of mass. Thus, the center of mass reference provides a way for
that the calculation all inertial frames to calculate the same work since a force is
always displaced over the same distance. Although we have
only considered the interaction of a mass with Earth, the
center of mass reference is useful for all interactions, such as
shown earlier is significant since the numerator and denomi- those involving masses propelled by a spring.
nator are both small.
In the Tefft and Tefft example, it is this (frame) displace- Performing work efficiently
ment that accounts for the “additional energy” calculated by A focus of this paper was to consider how forces act
only one observer since a force acts through this distance on through distances and the calculation of work on interacting
the ball. Tefft and Tefft show that this extra energy is equal to objects. In this section, we consider this perspective for in-
muv, and it was just this amount that was removed from the sights into performing work efficiently.
S frame’s calculation of work (i.e., mvu – mvu = 0) when we An energy balance must account for the work done on two
included Earth in the system. interacting objects in order for either one to achieve a differ-
ent velocity. The energy to increase the velocity of one mass
Center of mass reference frame must include the energy to increase the velocity of the inter-
Let us take a step back to get a better perspective on what acting mass. The required work always affects two interacting
we have observed. We looked at the interaction of two masses masses.
using different inertial reference frames. This brings us to an Although forces act on different objects with equal and op-
important point. In any interaction and in any inertial refer- posite magnitude, the work performed on each object is not,
ence frame, the velocity of the center of mass remains con- in general, equal (unless they have the same mass, or com-
stant. Our previous accounting for the individual velocities bination of translational and rotational energy imparted).11
really accounted for changes in velocity from the set center of This provides some insight into a method for performing
mass.7 work efficiently on a mass.
The center of mass reference is useful for calculating the Consider that a certain amount of work is to be performed
work and energy of interacting masses. Consider an individ- on a mass m1 to change its velocity from an initial velocity to
ual mass and its velocity relative to the center of mass (which a final velocity. During the period of time that the work is
includes other masses). All inertial reference frames observe performed on m1, additional work must also be performed on
the same relative velocity between the mass and the center of an interacting mass m2. At any given instant in time, the forc-
mass. Using Fig. 4 from the Galili and Kaplan cannon exam- es on each mass are equal and opposite. Yet different amounts
ple, consider the S0 frame: m has a change in velocity of of work are performed on each object when their masses are
(v) – (0) = v, and M has a change in velocity of (–ve ) – (0) = different since their displacements are also different. In order
–ve. The center of mass in the S0 frame is stationary (recall to minimize the total work, it is preferable to have a larger
that mv – Mve = 0 from the conservation of momentum). The mass for m2. Having a more massive m2 means that less work
S frame has a center of mass that moves to the right with a ve- is done on it (since it moves through a smaller distance with
locity of u, while m has a change in velocity of (v + u) – (u) = the same force).
v, and M has a change of velocity of (u – ve) – (u) = –ve. So in This insight is consistent with why it is more efficient
each inertial frame, m and M maintain their respective veloc- to accelerate a large amount of mass rather than a smaller
ity changes to the center of mass reference. amount of mass when a jet engine achieves the same propul-
Therefore, the calculation of work relative to the center sion.12
of mass is straightforward in the Galili and Kaplan cannon
example, Conclusion
We calculate that the work observed in two inertial ref-
erence frames is the same when the “infinitely large mass”
,
Earth is considered in the equations. This approach, which
for either reference frame. In fact, Mallinckrodt and Leff8 dis- uses work, forces, and distances, is different from the ap-
cussed this even more generally. They coin the term wext for proach of Galili and Kaplan, which uses the change in kinetic
“system-specific” external work, which uses displacements energy, although the results are equivalent.

The Physics Teacher ◆ Vol. 55, D ecember 2017 563

 A closed-system analysis includes the work that must be work for a car,” Int. J. Mech. Eng. Educ. 41 (1), 8–13 (2013).
done on another interacting mass. In any interaction, the 7. Although the center of mass remains close to Earth in the car
forces on the objects are equal and opposite in magnitude and cannon examples, it need not in other examples. Consider
(according to Newton’s third law), and work is done on both two equal masses propelled by a spring between them. The
center of mass does not remain close to either mass, although
objects according to their masses and displacements.
the center of mass for the system of masses never changes for
We noted that the center of mass can provide a useful the interaction.
perspective for calculating work for interacting masses. By 8. A. John. Mallinckrodt and Harvey. S. Leff, “All about work,”
using the center of mass reference, the work-kinetic energy Am. J. Phys. 60, 356–365 (April 1992).
theorem gives the same results for different inertial reference 9. Ibid., p. 359.
frames. The center of mass reference anchors inertial frames 10. Ibid., p. 361.
so that they all observe a force applied over the same distance 11. Even when both objects undergo constant acceleration (via a
(independent of the velocity of the moving reference frame). constant force) for a period of time, the work done at different
Finally, we noted that less energy is required to accelerate intervals of time can change as the distance traveled by differ-
an object from an initial velocity to a final velocity when the ent masses changes with velocity.
work is performed by the interaction with a more massive ob- 12. For example, see the following paper: Richard Kaufman,
ject. Thus, it is advantageous to use a more massive interact- “Thrust and propulsive efficiency from an instructive view-
ing object to reduce overall energy. point,” Phys. Educ. 45 (5), 494-499 (2010).

Richard Kaufman is president of Office Expander (www.

Acknowledgment OfficeExpander.com) and is a registered Professional Engineer (P.E.).
I would like to thank Emeritus Professor Eric Sheldon, now He also works for Smith & Nephew. He has worked as an adjunct
an Academic Visitor at the University of Oxford, for his in- professor of mathematics at UMass Lowell and Merrimack College.
terest, encouragement, and suggestions on this paper. I am Previously he was a performance engineer at GE Aircraft Engines. He
received his MS in mechanical engineering in 2000, his MS in math-
fortunate to have been one of his former students when he
ematics in 2011, and his BS in information technology in 2014,
taught at UMass Lowell. I would also like to thank David all from UMass Lowell.
Kaufman for the figure of the car. Finally, I would like to 233 Main Street, North Andover, MA 01845;
thank the editor and the reviewers for their suggestions. rdkaufman01@gmail.com

References
1. Igal Galili and Dov Kaplan, “Extending the application of the
relativity principle: Some pedagogical advantages,” Am. J. Phys.
65(4), 328–335 (April 1997).
2. Download the online appendix at TPT Online under the “Sup-
plemental” tab, http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.5011835.
3. See Ref. 1, p. 330.
4. Brandon J. Tefft and James A. Tefft, “Galilean relativity and the
work-kinetic energy theorem,” Phys. Teach. 45, 218–220 (April
2007).
5. The same type of increase in work has been observed in other
papers, such as the following paper by the author whereby a
mass that undergoes a constant acceleration requires three
times the amount of work to double its velocity because the
force must act through a larger distance: Richard Kaufman,
“Thrust and propulsive efficiency from an instructive view-
point,” Phys. Educ. 45 (5), 494–499 (2013).
6. The mechanism is used to do work on the car instead of using
the car’s engine since an engine cannot do any work to acceler-
ate the car by the drive wheel. Although acceleration is not pos-
sible without the external force of friction at the drive wheel,
the force does no work since it does not act through a distance.
This has been discussed in papers such as the following: Claude
M. Penchina, “Pseudowork-energy principle,” Am. J. Phys. 46,
295–296 (March 1978); Bruce Arne Sherwood, “Pseudowork
and real work,” Am. J. Phys. 51, 597–602 (July 1983); Arnold B.
Arons, “Developing the energy concepts in introductory phys-
ics,” Phys. Teach. 27, 506–517 (July 1989); Arvind Kumar, “Pit-
falls in elementary physics – 3. Work and energy,” Resonance 3
(12), 69–77 (1998); Richard Kaufman, “Pseudowork and real

564 The Physics Teacher ◆ Vol. 55, December 2017