Can we say that work done can be used only for mechanical energy?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of work and energy transfer, particularly in scenarios where force is applied without displacement, such as pushing against a wall. It highlights that while no mechanical work is done in such cases due to lack of movement, there may still be changes in energy forms, like potential energy in the wall's particles. The conversation also touches on the relationship between force, displacement, and kinetic energy, emphasizing that work is defined as force times displacement, which is zero at constant velocity. Participants clarify that energy transfer is linear with distance, and the increase in kinetic energy is quadratic with respect to speed. Ultimately, the thread underscores the complexities of work and energy in physics, particularly in static and dynamic systems.
Frigus
Messages
337
Reaction score
160
When we say that we apply force to a wall then we didn't transferred energy because of no displacement, but I think we somehow increase many types of energy of the wall. For e.g:- potential energy of particles in wall e.t.c.

So according to me it means that we defined work only for mechanical energy (kinetic energy+potential energy)
But I can't conclude myself anything because physics don't work according to my reasoning...I can't find anything written about this query so can you please tell me whether I am wrong or right.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hemant said:
When we say that we apply force to a wall then we didn't transferred energy because of no displacement, but I think we somehow increase many types of energy of the wall. For e.g:- potential energy of particles in wall e.t.c.

So according to me it means that we defined work only for mechanical energy (kinetic energy+potential energy)
But I can't conclude myself anything because physics don't work according to my reasoning...I can't find anything written about this query so can you please tell me whether I am wrong or right.
If you take a heavy object and lean it against a wall and leave it there, then it will apply a large force to the wall (and the wall will apply an equal force to the object). There will initially be some elastic potential energy stored near the point of contact, but you could leave the object there for years and there will be no work done by either object.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
PeroK said:
If you take a heavy object and lean it against a wall and leave it there, then it will apply a large force to the wall (and the wall will apply an equal force to the object). There will initially be some elastic potential energy stored near the point of contact, but you could leave the object there for years and there will be no work done by either object.
But I think energy of wall is increased so energy is transferred by force(in elastic potential energy)and then even if we say that in many years no work will be done by both objects then this doesn't means that no work is earlier done by either of the object.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes davenn
What if the wall is an ideally rigid material that doesn't deform when a force is applied to it?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Dale
Hemant said:
But I think energy of wall is increased so energy is transferred by force(in elastic potential energy)and then even if we say that in many years no work will be done by both objects then this doesn't means that no work is earlier done by either of the object.
The usual assumption is that the wall is rigid. So there is no energy transferred.

Work is not restricted to mechanical energy.
 
Chestermiller said:
What if the wall is an ideally rigid material that doesn't deform when a force is applied to it?
sorry for this silly question...
Thanks.

Hemant
 
Please help me out to get out of this doubt,
We have derived this
V2-U2=2as--(I)
Equation from these 2
S=ut+##\frac {1}{ 2} ##at2--(ii)
v=u+at--(iii)
From these I understand that difference between square of final and initial velocity depends on the displacement as given in equation (I)
Then we have another equation
F=ma--(iv)
Which we put in (I) to get this
##\Delta##K.E= ##\vec F\cdot\vec d##
From all these things I understand that we can use this equation of work done for constant acceleration as from (I) from we can know how change of square of vf and vi from equation (I) depends upon distance so we will put our initial and final position and then we can know change in vf2 and vi2 then after some algebra we will get change in kinetic energy which is equal to force times displacement which we called work done.
Now my confusion is that how can we use this force times displacement in the situations which have constant velocity as if see carefully after some displacement(when their is only one force) velocity is increased so to further increase velocity by a unit we have to provide more energy than earlier as kinetic energy depends upon square of velocity. For example for Changing velocity from 50m/s to 51 m/s we of mass 1 kg have to provide energy of 101 joules but for same mass if we have to change kinetic energy from 1m/s to 2 m/s we have to provide energy of 3 Joules.
Now in case of constant velocity the work done by our force for same displacement should be less than the displacement in case of single force.
 
Hemant said:
Now my confusion is that how can we use this force times displacement in the situations which have constant velocity
If you have constant velocity then ##a=0## so ##F=ma=0## and ##W=F\cdot d=0##
Hemant said:
For example for Changing velocity from 50m/s to 51 m/s we of mass 1 kg have to provide energy of 101 joules but for same mass if we have to change kinetic energy from 1m/s to 2 m/s we have to provide energy of 3 Joules.
Yes. This is correct.

Hemant said:
Now in case of constant velocity the work done by our force for same displacement should be less than the displacement in case of single force.
I cannot understand what you are asking in this part. If it is important then can you rephrase it more clearly?
 
Dale said:
If you have constant velocity then a=0a=0a=0 so F=ma=0F=ma=0F=ma=0 and W=F⋅d=0W=F⋅d=0W=F\cdot d=0
I was saying something different which I tried to explain in second point.
Dale said:
I cannot understand what you are asking in this part. If it is important then can you rephrase it more clearly?
Let's say 2 forces are acting on the object of same magnitude in opposite directions then net force is 0 but their is some constant velocity then after some time there will be some displacement due to velocity. Now if we want to find work done by individual force how can we calculate it because in this formula F.d the change in velocity square is included which will increase amount of energy transferred to object exponentially.
 
  • #10
Hemant said:
Let's say 2 forces are acting on the object of same magnitude in opposite directions then net force is 0 but their is some constant velocity then after some time there will be some displacement due to velocity. Now if we want to find work done by individual force how can we calculate it because in this formula F.d the change in velocity square is included which will increase amount of energy transferred to object exponentially.
Well, the energy does not increase exponentially, it is increases quadratically with respect to speed. However, at a constant speed (with some opposing force) that goes away and you are left with a transfer which is simply linear with respect to distance.

This is exactly the correct behavior. Suppose that you are pushing a block over a rough surface at constant speed, so the two forces are your pushing force and the friction force. The energy depends linearly on how far you push, so the power required is higher the faster you are pushing (linearly with respect to velocity). Intuitively that should make sense from your own experience pushing things along rough surfaces.
 
  • #11
Hemant said:
Let's say 2 forces are acting on the object of same magnitude in opposite directions then net force is 0 but their is some constant velocity then after some time there will be some displacement due to velocity. Now if we want to find work done by individual force how can we calculate it because in this formula F.d the change in velocity square is included which will increase amount of energy transferred to object exponentially.
You are confusing yourself with contradictions. In that one sentence you say "constant velocity" and "change in velocity". Are you confusing change in displacement with velocity?

In your example of two cancelling forces, the net force is 0 and the acceleration is zero, and the net work is 0. That is true no matter how big the two forces are as long as they add up to 0. So no, given those parameters you can not calculate the work done by each individual force; you don't know how big the forces are.
 
  • #12
anorlunda said:
net force is 0
I wanted to found work done by individual forces not net.
I was doing the question which I attached with this post then this query came to my mind.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20200203_235142.jpg
    IMG_20200203_235142.jpg
    26.3 KB · Views: 229
  • #13
Dale said:
Well, the energy does not increase exponentially, it is increases quadratically with respect to speed. However, at a constant speed (with some opposing force) that goes away and you are left with a transfer which is simply linear with respect to distance.

This is exactly the correct behavior. Suppose that you are pushing a block over a rough surface at constant speed, so the two forces are your pushing force and the friction force. The energy depends linearly on how far you push, so the power required is higher the faster you are pushing (linearly with respect to velocity). Intuitively that should make sense from your own experience pushing things along rough surfaces.
Okay I agree 💯,
this was the thing I wanted to say. So then we can't use the formula F.d
 
  • #14
Hemant said:
So then we can't use the formula F.d
Certainly, we can. That is how we know that the work is linear with distance (and therefore the power is linear with speed).
 
  • Informative
Likes Frigus
  • #15
Dale said:
Certainly, we can. That is how we know that the work is linear with distance (and therefore the power is linear with speed).
Thanks!
Work is linear so that's why to increase the speed by a unit we have to cover distance in proportion to increase in kinetic energy because work is linear with distance.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
Back
Top