Basic question about work and gravity

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter FredMadison
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity Work
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of work in the context of gravity and hovering objects, particularly helicopters and jetpacks. Participants explore the energy dynamics involved in maintaining a position in a gravitational field, examining the distinctions between work done against gravity and other forms of energy expenditure.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that while work is defined as dW = F·dr, hovering objects like helicopters require energy to maintain their position, despite not moving through a gravitational field.
  • Another participant argues that energy is needed to create thrust to oppose gravity, emphasizing that supporting a helicopter in the air requires energy, unlike when it is on the ground.
  • A participant suggests that work is being done as the helicopter blades push air down, indicating a vertical component to the force exerted on air molecules.
  • It is stated that while work is done to move the blades through the air, it is not considered work against gravity.
  • One participant introduces the idea of a helicopter resting on a rigid body, comparing it to a situation where intermolecular forces act like springs, questioning why energy is needed to hover but not to remain stationary on the ground.
  • Responses clarify that a constant supply of energy is necessary to keep the blades moving in mid-air, while no such energy is needed when the helicopter is supported by the ground.
  • Participants agree that while hovering, work is done against air resistance and friction, but not against gravity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that energy is required to maintain a hovering position due to air resistance and the mechanics of the helicopter, but there is no consensus on the nature of work done in these scenarios, particularly regarding the distinction between work against gravity and other forces.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions regarding the definitions of work and energy in different contexts remain unaddressed, and the discussion does not resolve the complexities of energy expenditure in hovering versus resting scenarios.

FredMadison
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Hi!

Work is defined as

[tex]dW = F\cdot dr[/tex]

so there is no work required to keep things spatially fixed in a gravitational potential. However, consider a hovering helicopter. Even though it is not moving in the gravitational field, it will eventually run out of fuel. Ofcourse there are dissipative losses but obviously it takes energy to keep the chopper from falling down.

Or when I'm flying my jetpack, I can't stay put at 100 ft indefinitely, it costs energy to keep hovering - still no work is being done.

Where does the energy go?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In those cases no work is being done against gravity, but energy is required to create the thrust to oppose gravity.

Supporting the helicopter can be done by placing it on the ground. No energy required. But if you want to support the helicopter in the air, you need to turn the blades and push air down--that takes energy.
 
So one could basically say that there IS work done because as the blades cut through the air there's a vertical component to the force exerted on the air molecules which for a brief period of time pushes them downward?
 
Sure, work is being done to move those blades through the air. But it's not work against gravity.
 
it iz spent in supplying the necessary centripetal force.
 
sudhanshurija said:
it iz spent in supplying the necessary centripetal force.
:confused:
 
Ok, so suppose that the helicopter is instead placed upon a rigid body. The distances between molecules in the supporting body are slightly compressed and thereby act as a bunch of tiny springs (if we assume that intermolecular forces can be modeled as derived from a harmonic potential). The compression thus causes a force that balances the gravitational one and an equilibrium state is reached in which no energy consumption is needed.
How is this situation different from the first? Why do we need a constant supply of power to keep an object still in the air, but no power to keep it still on the ground?
 
FredMadison said:
How is this situation different from the first? Why do we need a constant supply of power to keep an object still in the air, but no power to keep it still on the ground?
You need a constant supply of energy to keep the blades moving, which is required to produce the force needed to support the helicopter in mid air. If you just rest the helicopter on the ground (or hang it from a hook), you won't need to do that. Up to you.

In any case, you're not doing any work against gravity.
 
Doc Al said:
You need a constant supply of energy to keep the blades moving, which is required to produce the force needed to support the helicopter in mid air. If you just rest the helicopter on the ground (or hang it from a hook), you won't need to do that. Up to you.

In any case, you're not doing any work against gravity.

Fair enough.

But am I doing work against anything else?
 
  • #10
FredMadison said:
But am I doing work against anything else?
Of course. You are doing work against the resistance of the air (as the blades turn). (Not to mention overcoming any friction within the mechanism.)
 
  • #11
Ok, I think I follow you now. Thanks a lot!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
21K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K