Potential Energy Based On Order Of Force Applications?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the impact of the order of force applications on an elevator's potential energy. Two scenarios are presented: one where the elevator first accelerates upwards and then decelerates, resulting in a net gain in height and potential energy, and another where the order is reversed, leading to a loss in height and potential energy. The key point is that despite identical total forces applied, the sequence affects the final potential energy of the elevator. This raises questions about the significance of force application order in energy calculations. Ultimately, the conclusion drawn is that the order of forces does indeed influence an object's total energy.
DocZaius
Messages
365
Reaction score
11
An elevator cable pulls an elevator up with a force of (g+a)*m for t seconds where m is the mass of the elevator, accelerating it upwards. Then, for t seconds (just as many as the first time interval), it applies an upward force of (g-a)*m, decelerating it to a stop (the net force here is downwards because of g-a).

Let's put the potential energy reference point at the beginning of the situation. The elevator moved up. The elevator thus gained potential energy.

Now consider that the order had been reversed. First (g-a)*m then (g+a)*m, each for the same time intervals. The total force applied to the elevator would have been the same, yet the elevator would have lost potential energy in the latter case.

Is that correct? Did I do something wrong? It seems odd to me that two situations with identical force applications but differing orders of those applications would result in differing total energy for each case.

Note: this is not a homework question.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe I should rephrase my scenarios:

Consider an elevator at height h. If that elevator's cable first applies a force of (g+a)*m for y meters, then applies a force of (g-a)*m for y meters, the elevator's height is h+2y meters.

Now consider that same elevator back at height h. This time though, the elevator is first applying a force of (g-a) * m for -y meters, then applying a force of (g+a)*m for -y meters, the elevator's height is h-2y

In the first case, the elevator accelerated up, then accelerated down, and gained height (at the time it accelerated down, it had a positive velocity and so the acceleration down stopped it)
In the second case, the elevator accelerated down, then accelerated up, and lost height. (at the time it accelerated up, it had a negative velocity and so the acceleration up stopped it)

First case elevator's final PE > Second case elevator's final PE

The only difference between the first case and the second case was the order in which the forces of the elevator cable were administered.

Force order therefore matters when it comes to potential energy. Do you agree with this, and if not, where did I go wrong?

Again, not a homework question. I created this problem to show that order in which forces are administered has an effect on an object's total energy.
 
Last edited:
Of course the order which you apply the forces on the body determines the direction in which the body moves, but you must agree that you case is equivalent to the case with no gravitational field, when the force is ±ma.
The potential energy here has no meaning, since the field is uniform, by definition it is infinite, so the fact that you choose some surface in that infinite uniform field, and say all objects must stop there, has no physical or mathematical meaning (the distance from this chosen surface).
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top