There is little doubt that students find understanding how an electric motor works hard.
What follows is an approach that neatly sidesteps the need for applying Fleming’s Left Hand Rule (FLHR) by using the idea of the catapult field.
The catapult field is a neat bit of Physics pedagogy that appears to have fallen out of favour in recent years for some unknown reason. I hope to rehabilitate and publicise this valuable approach so that more teachers may try out this electromagnetic ‘road less travelled’.
(Incidentally, if you are teaching FLHR, the mnemonic shown above is not the best way to remember it: try using this approach instead.)
The magnetic field produced by a long straight conductor
Moving electric charges produce magnetic fields. When a current flows through a conductor, it produces a magnetic field in the form of a series of cylinders centred on the wire. This is usually shown on a diagram like this:
If we imagine looking down from a point directly above the centre of the conductor (as indicated by the disembodied eye), we would see a plan view like this:
We are using the ‘dot and cross‘ convention (where an X represents an arrow heading away from us and a dot represents an arrow heading towards us) to easily render a 3D situation as a 2D diagram.
The direction of the magnetic field lines is found by using the right hand grip rule.
The thumb is pointed in the direction of the current. The field lines ‘point’ in the same direction as the fingers on the right hand curl.
3D to 2D
Now let’s think about the interaction between the magnetic field of a current carrying conductor and the uniform magnetic field produced by a pair of magnets.
In the diagrams below, I have tried to make the transition between a 3D and a 2D representation explicit, something that as science teachers I think we skip over too quickly — another example of the ‘curse of knowledge’, I believe.
Magnetic Field on Magnetic Field
If we place the current carrying conductor inside the magnetic field produced by the permanent magnets, we can show the magnetic fields like this:
Note that, in the area shaded green, the both sets of magnetic field lines are in the same direction. This leads a to stronger magnetic field here. However, the opposite is true in the region shaded pink, which leads to a weaker magnetic field in this region.
The resultant magnetic field produced by the interaction between the two magnetic fields shown above looks like this.
Note that the regions where the magnetic field is strong have the magnetic field lines close together, and the regions where it is weak have the field lines far apart.
The Catapult Field
This arrangement of magnetic field lines shown above is unstable and is called a catapult field.
Essentially, the bunched up field lines will push the conductor out of the permanent magnetic field.
If I may wax poetic for a moment: as an oyster will form a opalescent pearl around an irritant, the permanent magnets form a catapult field to expel the symmetry-destroying current-carrying conductor.
The conductor is pushed in the direction of the weakened magnetic field. In a highly non-rigorous sense, we can think of the conductor being pushed out of the enfeebled ‘crack’ produced in the magnetic field of the permanent magnets by the magnetic field of the current carrying conductor…
Also, the force shown by the green arrow above is in exactly the same direction as the force predicted by Fleming’s Left Hand Rule, but we have established its direction using only the right hand grip rule and a consideration of the interaction between two magnetic field.
The Catapult Field for an electric motor
First, let’s make sure that students can relate the 3D arrangement for an electric motor to a 2D diagram.
The pink highlighted regions show where the field lines due to the current in the conductor (red) are in the opposite direction to the field line produced by the permanent magnet (purple). These regions are where the purple field lines will be weakened, and the clear inference is that the left hand side of the coil will experience an upward force and the right hand side of the coil will experience a downward force. As suggested (perhaps a little fancifully) above, the conductors are being forced into the weakened ‘cracks’ produced in the purple field lines.
The catapult field for the electric motor would look, perhaps, like this:
On a practical teaching note, I wouldn’t advise dispensing with Fleming’s Left Hand Rule altogether, but hopefully the idea of a catapult field adds another string to your pedagogical bow as far as teaching electric motors is concerned (!)
I have certainly found it useful when teaching students who struggle with applying Fleming’s Left Hand Rule, and it is also useful when introducing the Rule to supply an understandable justification why a force is generated by a current in a magnetic field in the first place.
The catapult field is a ‘road less travelled’ in terms of teaching electromagnetism, but I would urge you to try it nonetheless. It may — just may — make all the difference.
A potential divider circuit is, essentially, a circuit where two or more components are arranged in series.
(a) Two resistors in series; (b) an ammeter (top) and an electric motor in series; (c) (L to R) a resistor, filament lamp and variable resistor in series
For non-physicists, these types of circuit can sometimes present problems, so in this post I am going to look in detail at the basic physics involved; and I am going to explain them using the CTM or Coulomb Train Model. (You can find the CTM model explained here.)
In the AQA GCSE Physics (and Combined Science) specifications, students are required to know that:
Extract from p.26 of the AQA spec
First, let’s look at the basics of describing electric circuits: current, potential difference and resistance.
1.0 Using the CTM to explain current, potential difference and resistance
Pupils tend to start with one concept for electricity in a direct current circuit: a concept labelled ‘current’, or ‘energy’ or ‘electricity’, all interchangeable and having the properties of movement, storability and consumption. Understanding an electrical circuit involves first differentiating the concepts of current, voltage and energy before relating them as a system, in which the energy transfer depends upon current, time and the potential difference of the battery.
The notion of current flowing in the circuit is one which pupils often meet in their introduction to a circuit and, because this relates well with their intuitive notions, this concept becomes the primary concept. (Driver 1994: 124 [italics added])
To my mind, the CTM is an excellent “bridging analogy” that helps students visualise the invisible. It is a stepping stone that provides some concrete representations of abstract quantities. In my opinion, it can help students
move away from analysing circuits in terms of just current. (In my experience, even when students use terms like “potential difference”, in their eyes what they call “potential difference” behaves in a remarkably similar way to current e.g. it “flows through” components.)
understand the difference between current, potential difference and resistance and how important each one is
begin thinking of a circuit as a whole, interconnected system.
1.1 The CTM and electric current
Let’s begin by looking at a very simple circuit: a one ohm resistor connected across a 1 V cell.
A very simple circuit
Note that it is a good teaching technique to include two ammeters on either side of the component, although the readings on both will be identical. This is to challenge the perennial misconception that electric current is “used up”. Electric charge, according to our current understanding of the universe, is a conserved quantity like energy in that it cannot be created or destroyed.
The Coulomb Train Model invites us to picture an electric circuit as a flow of positively charged coulombs carrying energy around the circuit in a clockwise fashion as shown below. The coulombs are linked together to form a continuous chain.
The CTM applied to the very simple circuit shown above.
The name coulomb is not chosen at random: it is the SI unit of electric charge.
The current in this circuit will be given by I = V / R (equation 18 in the list on p.96 of the AQA spec, if you’re keeping track).
Using the AQA mark scheme-friendly FIFA protocol:
The otherwise inexplicable use of the letter “I” to represent electric current springs from the work André-Marie Ampère (1775–1836) and the French phrase intensité de courant (intensity of current).
From Q = I t (equation 17, p.96), current is a flow of electric charge, since I = Q / t. That is to say, if a charge of 2 coulombs passes (AQA call this a “charge flow”) in 2 seconds, the current will be …
A current of 1 amp is therefore represented on the CTM as 1 coulomb (or truck) passing by each second.
1.2 The CTM and Potential Difference
Potential difference or voltage is essentially the “energy difference” across any two parts of a circuit.
The equation used to define potential difference is not the familiar V = IR but rather the less familiar E = QV (equation 22 in the AQA list) where E is the energy transferred, Q is the charge flow (or the number of coulombs passing by in a certain time) and t is the time in seconds.
Let’s see what this would look like using the CTM:
(a) Circuit diagram showing how the measure the potential difference across a 1 V cell. (b) The same circuit represented using the CTM. (Note that the “white gloves” on the ends of the voltmeter connections are intended to be reminiscent of the white gloves of a snooker referee, indicating that the voltmeter does not disrupt the flow of the coulombs: in other words, the voltmeter has a high resistance.)
For the circuit shown, the voltmeter reading is 1 volt.
Note that on the CTM representation, one joule of energy is added to each coulomb as it passes through the cell.
If we had a 1.5 V cell then 1.5 joules would be transferred to each coulomb as it passed through, and so on.
(a) Circuit diagram showing potential difference measured across a connector with negligible resistance. (b) The same circuit represented using the CTM
If the voltmeter is moved to a different position as shown above, then the reading is 0 volts. This is because the coulombs at the points “sampled” by the voltmeter have the same amount of energy, so there is zero energy difference between them.
(a) Measuring the potential difference across a resistor. (b) The same circuit shown using the CTM.
In the position shown above, the voltmeter is measuring the potential difference across the resistor. For the circuit shown (assuming negligible resistance in all other parts of the circuit) the potential difference will be 1 V. In other words, each coulomb is losing one joule of energy as it passes through the resistance.
1.3 The CTM and Resistance
(a) Measuring the current through and the potential difference across a resistor. (b) The same circuit represented using the CTM.
In the circuit above, the potential difference across the resistor is 1 V and the current is 1 amp.
Resistance can therefore be thought of as the potential difference required to drive a current of 1 amp through that part of the circuit. It can also be thought of as the energy lost by each coulomb when a current of 1 amp flows through that part of the circuit; or, energy lost per coulomb per amp.
On the diagrams below, the coulombs are moving clockwise.
2.0 The CTM applied to a potential divider circuit
A potential divider circuit simply means that at least two resistors are in series so that the potential difference of the cell is shared across the resistors.
2.1 Two identical resistors
Because the two resistors are identical, the 3 V supply is shared equally across both resistors. That is to say, there is a potential difference of 1.5 V across each resistor. But let’s check this by applying V = IR (eq. 18). The total potential difference is 3 V and the total resistance is 1 ohm + 1 ohm = 2 ohms.
Now let’s use V = IR to check that the potential difference across each separate resistor is indeed half the total supply of 3 V. The resistance of one resistor is one ohm and the current through each one is 1.5 A. So V = 1.5 x 1 = 1.5 V.
But what would happen if we doubled the value of each resistor to 2 ohms?
Well, the current would be smaller: I = V/R = 3/4 = 0.75 amps.
The potential difference across each separate resistor would be V = I R = 0.75 x 2 = 1.5 V
So, the potential difference is always split equally when two identical resistors are placed in series (although, of course, the total resistance and the current will be different depending on the values of the resistors).
2.2a Two non-identical resistors
Let’s consider a circuit with a 2 ohm resistor in series with a 1 ohm resistor.
In this circuit, the total resistance is 1 ohm + 2 ohms = 3 ohms. The current flowing through the circuit is I = V / R = 3 / 3 = 1 amp.
So the potential difference across the 2 ohm resistor is V = IR = 1 x 2 = 2 V and the potential difference across the one ohm resistor is V = IR = 1 x 1 = 1 V.
Note that the resistor with the largest value gets the largest “share” of the potential difference.
2.2b Two non-identical resistors (different order)
Now let’s reverse the order of the resistors.
The current remains unchanged because the total resistance of the circuit is still the same.
Note that the largest resistor still gets the largest share of the potential difference, whichever way round the resistors are placed.
2.3 In Defence of the CTM and Donation Models
Many Physics teachers prefer “rope models” to so-called “donation models” like the CTM.
And it is perfectly true that rope models have some good points such as the ability to easily explain AC and a more accurate approximation of what happens when current starts to flow or stops flowing. The difficulty in their use, in my opinion, is that you are using concepts that many students barely understand (e.g. friction to model resistance) to explain how very unfamiliar concepts such as potential difference work. Also, the vagueness of some of the analogs is unhelpful: for example, when we compare potential difference to “push”, are we talking about the net resultant force on the rope or simply the force needed to balance the frictional force and keep it moving at a steady speed?
To my way of thinking, the CTM has the advantage of encouraging quantitative thinking about current, potential difference and resistance almost from the moment of first teaching. Admittedly, it cannot cope with AC — but then again, we model AC as a direct current when we use RMS values. Now admittedly, rope models are far better at picturing what happens in the initial fractions of a second when a current starts to flow after closing a switch. Be that as it may, the CTM comes into its own when we consider the “steady state” of current flow after the initial surge currents.
One of the frequent criticisms (which is usually considered quite damning) of this type of model is “How do the coulombs know how much energy to drop off at each resistor?”
For example, in the diagram above, how do the coulombs “know” to drop off 1 J at the first resistor and 2 J at the second resistor?
The answer is: they don’t. Rather, the energy loss is due to the nature of the resistor: think of a resistor as a tunnel lined with strip curtains. A coulomb loses only a small amount of its excess energy passing through a low value resistor, but a much larger amount passing through a higher value resistor, as modelled below.
A 1 ohm and 2 ohm resistor modelled as strip curtains
FWIW I therefore commend the use of the CTM to all interested parties.
Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. Routledge.
The AQA GCSE Science specification calls for students to understand and apply the concepts of not only thermal energy stores but also internal energy. What follows is my understanding of the distinction between the two, which I hope will be of use to all science teachers.
My own understanding of this topic has undergone some changes thanks to some fascinating (and ongoing) discussions via EduTwitter.
What I suggest is that we look at the phenomena in question through two lenses:
a macroscopic lens, where we focus on things we can sense and measure directly in the laboratory
a microscopic lens, where we focus on using the particle model to explain phase changes such as melting and freezing.
Thermal Energy Through the Macroscopic Lens
The enojis for thermal energy stores (as suggested by the Institute of Physics) look like this (Note: ‘enoji’ = ‘energy’ + ’emoji’; and that the IoP do not use the term):
In many ways, they are an excellent representation. Firstly, energy is represented as a “quasi-material entity” in the form of an orange liquid which can be shifted between stores, so the enoji on the left could represent an aluminium block before it is heated, and the one on the right after it is heated. Secondly, it also attempts to make clear that the so-called forms of energy are labels added for human convenience and that energy is the same basic “stuff” whether it is in the thermal energy store or the kinetic energy store. Thirdly, it makes the link between kinetic theory and thermal energy stores explicit: the particles in a hot object are moving faster than the particles in the colder object.
However, I think the third point is not necessarily an advantage as I believe it will muddy the conceptual waters when it comes to talking about internal energy later on.
If I was a graphic designer working for the IoP these are the enojis I would present:
In other words, a change in the thermal energy store is always associated with a temperature change. To increase the temperature of an object, we need to shift energy into the thermal energy store. To cool an object, energy needs to be shifted out of the thermal energy store.
This has the advantage of focusing on the directly observable macroscopic properties of the system and is, I think, broadly in line with the approach suggested by the AQA specification.
Internal Energy Through the Microscopic Lens
Internal energy is the “hidden” energy of an object.
The “visible” energies associated with an object would include its kinetic energy store if it is moving, and its gravitational potential energy store if it is lifted above ground level. But there is also a deeper, macroscopically-invisible store of energy associated with the particles of which the object is composed.
To understand internal energy, we have to look through our microscopic lens.
The Oxford Dictionary of Physics (2015) defines internal energy as:
The total of the kinetic energies of the atoms and molecules of which a system consists and the potential energies associated with their mutual interactions. It does not include the kinetic and potential energies of the system as a whole nor their nuclear energies or other intra-atomic energies.
In other words, we can equate the internal energy to the sum of the kinetic energy of each individual particle added to the sum of the potential energy due to the forces between each particle. In the simple model below, the intermolecular forces between each particle are modelled as springs, so the potential energy can be thought as stretching and squashing the “springs”. (Note: try not to talk about “bonds” in this context as it annoys the hell out of chemists, some of whom have been known to kick like a mule when provoked!)
We can never measure or calculate the value of the absolute internal energy of a system in a particular state since energy will be shifting from kinetic energy stores to potential energy stores and vice versa moment-by-moment. What is a useful and significant quantity is the change in the internal energy, particularly when we are considering phase changes such as solid to liquid and so on.
This means that internal energy is not synonymous with thermal energy; rather, the thermal energy of a system can be taken as being a part (but not the whole) of the internal energy of the system.
As Rod Nave (2000) points out in his excellent web resource Hyperphysics, what we think of as the thermal energy store of a system (i.e. the sum of the translational kinetic energies of small point-like particles), is often an extremely small part of the total internal energy of the system.
My excellent Edu-tweeting colleague @PhysicsUK has pointed out that there is indeed a discrepancy between the equations presented by AQA in their specification and on the student equation sheet.
If a change in thermal energy is always associated with a change in temperature (macroscopic lens) then we should not use the term to describe the energy change associated with a change of state when there is no temperature change (microscopic lens).
@PhysicsUK reports that AQA have ‘fessed up to the mistake and intend to correct it in the near future. Sooner would be better than later, please, AQA!
Nave, R. (2000). HyperPhysics. Georgia State University, Department of Physics and Astronomy.
Students and non-specialist teachers alike wonder: whence the half?
This post is intended to be a diagrammatic answer to this question using a Singapore Bar Model approach: so pedants, please avert your eyes.
I am indebted to Ben Rogers’ recent excellent post on showing momentum using the Bar Model approach for starting me thinking along these lines.
Part the First: How to get the *wrong* answer
Imagine pushing an object with a mass m with a constant force Fso that it accelerates with a constant acceleration aso that covers a distance s in a time t. The object was initially at rest and ends up moving at velocity v.
(On the diagram, I’ve used the SUVAT dual coding conventions that I suggested in a previous post.)
So let’s consider the work done on the object by the force:
Step 1: work done = force x distance moved in the direction of the force
Step 2: Wd = F x s
But remember s = v x t so:
Step 3: Wd = F x vt
And also remember that F = m x a so:
Step 4: Wd = ma x vt
Also remember that a = change in velocity / time, so a = (v – 0) / t = v / t.
Step 5: Wd= m (v / t) x vt
The ts cancel so:
Step 6: Wd = mv2
Since this is the work done on the object by the force, it is equal to the energy transferred to the kinetic energy store of the object. In other words, it is the energy the object has gained because it is moving — its kinetic energy, no less: Ek = mv2.
On a Singapore Bar Model diagram this can be represented as follows:
The kinetic energy is represented by the volume of the bar.
But wait: Ek=mv2!?!?
That’s just wrong: where did the half go?
Houston, we have a problem.
Part the Second: how to get the *right* answer
The problem lies with Step 3 above. We wronglyassumed that the object has a constant velocity over the whole of the distance s.
It doesn’t because it is accelerating: it starts off moving slowly and ends up moving at the maximum, final velocity v when it has travelled the total distance s.
So Step 3 should read:
But remember that s = (average velocity) x t.
Because the object is accelerating at a constant rate, the average velocity is (v + u) / 2 and since u = 0 then average velocity is v / 2.
Step 3: Wd= F x (v / 2) t
And also remember that F = m x a so:
Step 4: Wd= ma x (v / 2) t
Also remember that a = change in velocity / time, so a = (v – 0) / t = v / t.
Step 5: Wd= m (v / t) x (v / 2) t
The ts cancel so:
Step 6: Wd= ½mv2
Based on this, of course, Ek = ½mv2
(Phew! Houston, we no longer have a problem.)
Using the Bar Model representation, the volume of the bar which is above the blue plane represents the kinetic energy of an object of mass m moving at a velocity v.
The reason it is half the volume of the bar and not the full volume (as in the incorrect Part the First analysis) is because we are considering the work done by a constant force accelerating an object which is initially at rest; the velocity of the object increases gradually from zero as the force acts upon it. It therefore takes a longer time to cover the distance s than if it was moving at a constant velocity v from the very beginning.
So there we have it, Ek = ½mv2 by a rather circuitous method.
But why go “all around the houses” in this manner? For exactly the same reason as we might choose to go by the path less travelled on some of our other journeys: quite simply, we might find that we enjoy the view.
The theory of dual coding holds that the formation of mental images, in tandem with verbal processing, is often very helpful for learners. In other words, if we support verbal reasoning with visual representations, then better learning happens.
Many years ago, I was taught the dual coding technique outlined below to help with SUVAT problems. Of course, it wasn’t referred to as “dual coding” back then, but dual coding it most definitely is.
I found it a very useful technique at the time and I still find it useful to this day. And what is more, it is in my opinion a pedagogically powerful procedure. I genuinely believe that this technique helps students understand the complexities and nuances of SUVAT because it brings many things which are usually implicit out into the open and makes them explicit.
SUVAT: “Made darker by definition”?
BOSWELL. ‘He says plain things in a formal and abstract way, to be sure: but his method is good: for to have clear notions upon any subject, we must have recourse to analytick arrangement.’
JOHNSON. ‘Sir, it is what every body does, whether they will or no. But sometimes things may be made darker by definition. I see a cow, I define her, Animal quadrupes ruminans cornutum. But a goat ruminates, and a cow may have no horns. Cow is plainer.
— Boswell’s Life of Johnson (1791)
As I see it, the enduring difficulty with SUVAT problems is that such things can indeed be made darker by definition. Students are usually more than willing to accept the formal definitions of s, u, v, a and t and can apply them to straightforward and predictable problems. However, the robotic death-by-algorithm approach fails all too frequently when faced with even minor variations on a theme.
Worse still, students often treat acceleration, displacement and velocity as nearly-synonymous interchangeable quantities: they are all lumped together in that naive “intuitive physics” category called MOVEMENT.
The approach that follows attempts to make students plainly see differences between the SUVAT quantities and, hopefully, as make them as plain as a cow (to borrow Dr Johnson’s colourful phrasing).
Visual Symbols for the Dual-coding of SUVAT problems
1.1 Analysing a simple SUVAT problem using dual coding
Problem: a motorcycle accelerates from rest at 0.8 m/s2 for a time of 6.0 seconds. Calculate (a) the distance travelled; and (b) the final velocity.
We are using the AQA-friendly convention of substituting values before rearrangement. (Some AQA mark schemes award a mark for the correct substitution of values into an expression; however, the mark will not be awarded if the expression is incorrectly rearranged. Weaker students are strongly encouraged to substitute before rearrangement, and this is what I model.)
A later time is indicated by the movement of the hands on the clock.
So far, so blindingly obvious, some might say.
But I hope the following examples will indicate the versatility of the approach.
1.2a Analysing a more complex SUVAT problem using dual coding (Up is positive convention)
Problem: A coin is dropped from rest takes 0.84 s to fall a distance of 3.5 m so that it strikes the water at the bottom of a well. With what speed must it be thrown vertically so that it takes exactly 1.5 s to hit the surface of the water?
Another advantage of this method is that it makes assigning positive and negative directions to the SUVAT vectors easy as it becomes a matter of simply comparing the directions of each vector quantity (that is to say, s, u, v and a) with the arbitrarily selected positive direction arrow when we substitute values into the expression.
But what would happen if we’d selected a different positive direction arrow?
1.2b Analysing a more complex SUVAT problem using dual coding (Down is positive convention)
Problem: A well is 3.5 m deep so that a coin dropped from rest takes 0.84 s to strike the surface of the water. With what speed must it be thrown so that it takes exactly 1.5 s to hit the surface of the water?
The answer is, of course, numerically equal to the previous answer. However, following the arbitrarily selected down is positive convention, we have a negative answer.
1.3 Analysing a projectile problem using dual coding
Let’s look at this typical problem from AQA.
We could annotate the diagram like this:
Guiding our students through the calculation:
Just Show ‘Em!
Some trad-inclined teachers have embraced the motto: Just tell ’em!
It’s a good motto, to which dual coding can add the welcome corollary: Just show ’em!
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences
The famous phrase is, of course, from physicist Eugene Wigner (1960: 2):
My principal aim is to illuminate it from several sides. The first point is that the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and that there is no rational explanation for it.
Further exploration of the above problem using dual coding can, I believe, give A-level students a glimpse of the truth of Wigner’s phrase.
This Is The Root You’re Looking For
In the calculation above, we found that when s = -1.8 m, v could have a value of plus or minus 6.90 m/s. Since we were interested in the velocity of the kite boarder at the end of the journey, we concluded that it was the negative root that was significant for our purposes.
But does the positive root have any physical significance? Why yes, it does. It indicates the other possible value of v when s = -1.8 m.
The displacement was -1.8 m at only one point on the real journey. However, if the kite boarder had started their projectile motion from the level of the water surface instead of from the top of the ramp, their vertical velocity at this point would have been +6.9 m/s.
The fact that the kite boarder did not start their journey from this point is immaterial. Applying the mathematics not only tells us about their actual journey, but all other possible journeys that are consistent with the stated parameters and the subset of the laws of physics that we are considering in this problem — and that, to me, borders enough on the mysterious to bring home Wigner’s point.
This information allows us to annotate our final diagram as below (bearing in mind, of course, that the real journey of the kite boarder started from the top of the ramp and not from the water’s surface as shown).
Let me end on a more cheerful note. The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
The first rule of IoP Energy Club is: you do not talk about energy . . .
. . . unless you’re gonna do a calculation.
— with apologies to Brad Pitt and Chuck Palahniuk
In the UK, the IoP (Institute of Physics) has developed a model of energy stores and energy pathways that has been adopted by all the exam boards. Although answers couched in terms of the old “forms of energy” model currently get full credit, this will almost certainly change over time (gradually or otherwise).
This post is intended to be a “one stop” resource for busy teachers, with suggestions for further reading.
Please note that I have no expertise or authority on the new model beyond that of a working teacher who has spent a fair amount of time researching, thinking about and discussing the issues. What follows is essentially my own take, “supplemented by the accounts of their friends and the learning of the Wise” (if I may borrow from Frodo Baggins!).
Part the First: “Why? For the love of God, why!?!”
The old forms of energy model was familiar and popular with students and teachers. It is still used by many textbooks and online resources. However, researchers have suggested that there are significant problems with this approach:
Students just learn a set of labels which adds little to their understanding (see Millar 2014 p.6).
The “forms of energy” approach focuses attention in the wrong place: it highlights the label, rather than the physical process. There is no difference between chemical energy and kinetic energy except the label, just as there is no difference between water stored in a cylindrical tank and a rectangular tank. (See Boohan 2014 p.12)
The new IoP Stores and Pathways model attempts to address these issues by limiting discussions of energy to situations where we might want to do calculations.
Essentially, the IoP wanted to simplify “energy-talk” and make it a better approximation of the way that professional scientists (especially physicists) actually use energy-concepts. The trick is to get away from the old and nebulous “naming of parts” approach to a newer, more streamlined version that is fit for purpose.
Part the Second: How many energy stores?
The second rule of IoP Energy Club is: youdo not talk about energy . . . . . . unless you’re gonna do a calculation.
— with apologies to Brad Pitt and Chuck Palahniuk
The IoP suggests eight named energy stores (listed below with the ones likely to be needed early in the teaching sequence listed first).
Many will be surprised to see that electrical energy, light energy and sound energy are not on this list: more on that later.
There are, I think, two very important points:
All of these energy stores represent quantities that are routinely measured in joules.
All of the energy stores represent a system where energy can be stored for an appreciable period of time.
For example, a rattling washing machine is not a good example of a vibration energy store as it does not persist over an extended period of time: as soon as the motor stops, the machine stops rattling. On the other hand, a struck tuning fork, a plucked guitar string or a bell hit with a hammer are good examples of vibration energy stores.
Similarly, a hot object is not a vibration energy store: it is better described as a thermal energy store. Thermal energy stores are useful when there is a change in temperature or a change in state.
Likewise, a lit up filament bulb is not a good example of a thermal energy store because it does not persist over an extended period of time; switch off the current, and the bulb filament would rapidly cool.
Note also that the electric-magnetic energy store applies to situations involving magnets and static electric charges. It is not equivalent to the old “electrical energy”.
The thread linking all the above examples is we limit discussions of energy to situations where we could perform calculations.
Thermal energy store is an appropriate concept for (say) the water in a kettle because we can calculate the change in the thermal energy store of the water and the result is useful in a wide range of situations. However the same is not true of a hot bulb filament as the change in the thermal energy store of the filament is not a useful quantity to calculate (at least in most circumstances). For further discussion, see this blog post and also this section of the IoP Supporting Physics website.
Part the third: How many energy pathways?
The third rule of IoP Energy Club is: there ain’t no such thing as ‘light energy’ (or ‘sound energy’ or ‘electrical energy’).
— with apologies to Brad Pitt and Chuck Palahniuk
In the new IoP Energy model, there is no such thing as a “light energy store”. Instead, we talk about energy pathways.
Energy pathways describe dynamic quantities that are routinely measured in watts. That is to say, they are dynamic or temporal in the sense that their measurement depends on time (watts = joules per second); energy stores are static or atemporal over a given period of time.
It is not useful to talk about a “light energy store” because it does not persist over time: the visible light emitted by (say) a street lamp is not static — it is not helpful to think of it as a static “box of joules”. Instead it is a dynamic “flow” of joules which means its most convenient unit of measurement is the watt.
As an analogy, think of an energy store as a container or tank; in contrast, think of a pathway as a channel or tap that allows energy to move from one store to another. )
You can read more on the “tanks and taps” analogy here.
The cautious reader should note that the IoP describe slightly different pathways which you can read about here. (Mechanical and Electrical Working are in, but the IoP talk about “Heating by particles” and “Heating by radiation”; on this categorisation, sound would fit into the “Mechanical Working” category!)
The fourth rule of IoP Energy Club is: I don’t care what you call it, if it’s measured in watts, it’s a pathway not an energy store, OK?
— with apologies to Brad Pitt and Chuck Palahniuk
You can look forward to more ‘IoP Energy Club Rules’, as and when I make them up.
Important note: all of the above content is the personal opinion of a private individual. It has not been approved or endorsed by the IoP.
Stars, so far as we understand them today, are not “alive”.
Now and again we saw a binary and a third star approach one another so closely that one or other of the group reached out a filament of its substance toward its partner. Straining our supernatural vision, we saw these filaments break and condense into planets. And we were awed by the infinitesimal size and the rarity of these seeds of life among the lifeless host of the stars. But the stars themselves gave an irresistible impression of vitality. Strange that the movements of these merely physical things, these mere fire-balls, whirling and traveling according to the geometrical laws of their minutest particles, should seem so vital, so questing.
Olaf Stapledon, Star Maker (1937)
And yet, it still makes sense to speak of a star being “born”, “living” and even “dying”.
We have moved on from Stapledon’s poetic description of the formation of planets from a filament of star-stuff gravitationally teased-out by a near-miss between passing celestial orbs. This was known as the “Tidal Hypothesis” and was first put forward by Sir James Jeans in 1917. It implied that planets circling stars would be an incredibly rare occurrence.
Today, it would seem that the reverse is true: modern astronomy tells us that planets almost inevitably form as a nebula collapses to form a star. It appears that stars with planetary systems are the norm, rather than the exception.
Be that as it may, the purpose of this post is to share a way of teaching the “life cycle” of a star that I have found useful, and that many students seem to appreciate. It uses the old trick of using analogy to “couch abstract concepts in concrete terms” (Steven Pinker’s phrase).
I find it humbling to consider that currently there are no black dwarf stars anywhere in the observable universe, simply because the universe isn’t old enough. The universe is merely 13.7 billion years old. Not until the universe is some 70 000 times its current age (about 1015 years old) will enough time have elapsed for even our oldest white dwarfs to have cooled to become a black dwarf. If we take the entire current age of the universe to be one second past midnight on a single 24-hour day, then the first black dwarfs will come into existence at 8 pm in the evening…
And finally, although to the best of our knowledge, stars are in no meaningful sense “alive”, I cannot help but close with a few words from Stapledon’s riotous and romantic imaginative tour de force that is yet threaded through with the disciplined sinews of Stapledon’s understanding of the science of his day:
Stars are best regarded as living organisms, but organisms which are physiologically and psychologically of a very peculiar kind. The outer and middle layers of a mature star apparently consist of “tissues” woven of currents of incandescent gases. These gaseous tissues live and maintain the stellar consciousness by intercepting part of the immense flood of energy that wells from the congested and furiously active interior of the star. The innermost of the vital layers must be a kind of digestive apparatus which transmutes the crude radiation into forms required for the maintenance of the star’s life. Outside this digestive area lies some sort of coordinating layer, which may be thought of as the star’s brain. The outermost layers, including the corona, respond to the excessively faint stimuli of the star’s cosmical environment, to light from neighbouring stars, to cosmic rays, to the impact of meteors, to tidal stresses caused by the gravitational influence of planets or of other stars. These influences could not, of course, produce any clear impression but for a strange tissue of gaseous sense organs, which discriminate between them in respect of quality and direction, and transmit information to the correlating “brain” layer.