Physics of Climbing vs. Walking (Horizontal)

AI Thread Summary
Climbing stairs requires more energy than walking horizontally due to the increase in gravitational potential energy associated with height gained. The discussion suggests modeling the scenario using a right-angle triangle to compare the energy expenditure for both movements. While calculating the potential energy increase provides a basic understanding, the complexity increases when considering human biomechanics and efficiency. Factors such as slope and individual fitness levels significantly influence energy expenditure, making precise measurements challenging. Overall, the physics of climbing versus walking highlights the greater effort required for vertical movement.
WWGD
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
7,701
Reaction score
12,779
Hi, please forgive my ignorance here; I barely have just a basic undergrad. training in physics:

I was trying to see if we can use physics to determine how much harder it is (say, by amount
of energy/calories spent; maybe someone can suggest a better measure? ) to climb stairs,
given the slope of the stairs, than it is to move the same distance horizontally, i.e., let's
model a right-angle triangle with sides a,b and hypotenuse c , so that c^2=a^2+b^2.
Say we have a constant slope θ. Can we use physics to determine how much harder is it to go along the length c of the hypotenuse than it is to move( by walking, of course) the same c units horizontally? Of course, we're oversimplifying in assuming the movement up the stairs is done
along a line; maybe there is a better way of modeling this?
Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
One way to do that is to calculate the increase in potential energy by that increased height. That increased energy must be equal to the work done in climbing.
 
This sort of problem is easier to solve when you are talking about mechanical devices with motors and wheels and even then, there are issues of getting the best efficiency by doing work at the optimum rate. The best you can do, initially, is to base calculations on the height achieved (Gravitational Potential Energy) but including the human body makes it much harder. Merely walking along on the horizontal, takes Power. You then need to add the height gained.

If you have done any running or cycling, you will have noticed what a difference any small up or downhill slope makes to the ease of moving. I am very skeptical of the use of pedometers to estimate the energy use at work. There must be a huge number of variables in evolved. A common method is based on measuringe the gases in your exhaled breath.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?
Back
Top