More energy is needed to walk down stairs than to walk horizontally

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tabe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the energy required to walk down stairs compared to walking horizontally at the same speed. Participants explore the underlying reasons for the perceived increase in energy expenditure when descending stairs, questioning the role of height and impact absorption in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand why more energy is needed to walk down stairs, suggesting height as a potential factor. Other participants discuss the impact of foot and leg absorption during stair descent and how this relates to energy expenditure.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the concepts, with some providing insights into the mechanics of walking down stairs versus walking on a level surface. There is an exploration of kinetic energy and its properties, particularly regarding negative values and their implications. While some clarity is achieved, the discussion remains open-ended with ongoing questions.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating complex concepts related to energy, impact, and motion, with references to scalar and vector quantities. The original poster expresses a desire to master these concepts, indicating a focus on understanding rather than just solving problems.

Tabe
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Ok, here is my problem: Explain why more energy is needed to walk down stairs than to walk horizontally at the same speed?
I don't get it, its against logic isn't it.
Is it because of the height, that causes the energy walking down the stairs to be greater? That's the only explanation that I can think of. Can anybody help explain this to me a little better
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Think about what it's like to walk down stairs. Every time you take a step, your foot and leg have to absorb the impact of your foot on the ground. When you're walking on the level, that impact is basically the same every time.

When you're walking down stairs, the impact is greater each time than it would be on the level. (Think energy, and answer the question why?.) It takes some work in your body to absorb that impact. (Again - why?. Think about how your muscles have to move in that case. That motion takes energy.)

Sufficient?
 
Ok, now that I have that solved, I have one more question about energy.
Can the kinetic energy of an object be negative? I know that you can have a negative acceleration, but can you technically have a negative energy, or is it merely directional? If you have a negative acceleration, you would have a negative force, which in turn could produce a negative kinetic energy, but how can the object have negative energy, especially when its moving?
 
Remember, there is a difference between vector quantities (like acceleration and velocity) and scalar quantities (like speed or energy). You can have a "negative" acceleration because direction is a part of it, and the direction is being carried by a negative sign. All the negative means is that the acceleration is opposite in direction to your arbitrarily-defined positive.

A negative kinetic energy, though, would be another kettle of worms all together. Remember, kinetic energy is the energy of motion. What would it mean if the kinetic energy were negative? It wouldn't mean that the object was moving in the opposite direction - the kinetic energy of an object is the amount of work it takes to get it up to speed. The direction is totally irrelevant.

Perhaps that's a better way to look at it. When I say that an object has a kinetic energy of 10J, that just means that I'll have to do 10J of work on it to take it from rest to whatever speed it has. A kinetic energy of "-10J" would seem to mean that I'll have to remove 10J of energy from it to get it from rest to that speed. If it isn't moving, though, how do I take kinetic energy out of it? There isn't any there to start with.

Basically, when you talk about negative energy of any type, you're comparing it to some arbitrary reference. You can, for instance, have a negative gravitational potential energy. All this means is that you're below your reference position. It means that you'd have to remove that amount of potential energy from the object to lower it from the reference to the position of interest. Note here that direction matters - it makes a difference whether you're lifting something up or lowering it down. With speed, there is no difference. Making it go faster from rest takes the same amount of work whatever direction you're going.

*sigh* This is hard to explain in text messages. Does that make any sense at all?
 
Yes, actually it does, I think I can explain it now. Thanks for the help. I can solve the problems, but I can't master the concepts, quite interesting.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K