Calculate the work as the MINIMUM amount of work

  • Thread starter Thread starter danago
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Minimum Work
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves calculating the work done by a weightlifter in lifting a 100kg mass a distance of 2.4m. The context includes considerations of gravitational force and the implications of acceleration on the work calculation.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the necessity of applying a force greater than the weight force to lift the mass and question the implications of acceleration on the work done. There are differing views on whether the minimum work calculation should account for constant velocity or acceleration.

Discussion Status

The discussion is exploring various interpretations of the work done in lifting the mass, with some participants providing clarifications on the relationship between force, work, and motion. There is no explicit consensus, but guidance has been offered regarding the conditions under which the minimum work is calculated.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating assumptions about the forces involved and the conditions of motion, including the lack of specified acceleration in the problem statement.

danago
Gold Member
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
4
Hey. Heres the question:

"A weightlifter lifts a 100kg mass 2.4m from the floor. He then holds the mass steady for 3 seconds before dropping it. What is the work done by the weightlifer in raising the mass?"

Well. I know mass is applying a force downward of 980N because of gravity, so for this question, since an acceleration of the mass is not stipulated, do i just calculate the work as the MINIMUM amount of work he would do? Which would be around 2352J, so for the answer, would i just say that he must do MORE THAN 2352J of work to lift the weight?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It doesn't matter what the acceleration of the mass is. If here were to provide a drastic acceleration for 1 meter, he would no longer need to push upwards because the mass would have been thrown up and going up at this moment.
 
If an object is applying a weight force of 980N downwards, and i applied a force back on it of 980N upwards, the object would be stationary right?

So to make the mass move upwards, wouldn't it require that the weightlifer apply a force of MORE than the weight force of 980N? OR am i completely missing the point here
 
No you do not need to apply a force more that 980N, just 980N will do.

Any force that is more than 980N will result in an aceleration of the weight, since there is net force. ( X - 980 = Net force, where X >980)

The minimum amount of work that is required, requires the weight to be traveling at constant velocity.(Net force = zero, force applied=weight)

Hope it helps. :)
 
danago said:
If an object is applying a weight force of 980N downwards, and i applied a force back on it of 980N upwards, the object would be stationary right?

So to make the mass move upwards, wouldn't it require that the weightlifer apply a force of MORE than the weight force of 980N? OR am i completely missing the point here

Yes, you are completely missing the point! Work= force*distance. Any force, above 980 N, applied to accelerate the the mass so that it will move upward, will have to be "negated" by a force under 980 N to stop it. The work done by those will cancel. The only force that counts is the 980 N that must be applied upward to counteract gravity and keep the weight moving at constant speed.

Or, you could argue that the work done is the difference in potential energies at the two points- again, weight*distance.
 
Ahhh ok i see now :P

Thanks
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
10K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K