Carrying a heavy box - work done?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sione
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Box Work Work done
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the calculation of work done when carrying a box at constant velocity versus running with constant velocity. It is established that when a person carries a box at constant velocity, the net work done on the box is zero due to no acceleration, while energy is expended by the person, which is often misunderstood. The confusion arises from different interpretations of "work done," with some assuming it refers to work done by external forces like gravity, while others consider the energy expended by the person. The consensus is that proper references are necessary to clarify these distinctions and avoid misinterpretations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's laws of motion
  • Familiarity with the concept of work in physics
  • Knowledge of energy expenditure in human locomotion
  • Ability to interpret physics textbooks and academic articles
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the definition of work in physics and its mathematical formulation
  • Explore the differences between kinetic and potential energy in various contexts
  • Study the physiological aspects of energy expenditure during different physical activities
  • Examine case studies or textbooks that clarify common misconceptions about work and energy
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the nuances of work and energy in physical activities, particularly in the context of human locomotion and biomechanics.

Sione
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
this is not homework,
different internet articles and online textbooks suggest different answers.


Calculate work done:
a.) Person carries a box with constant velocity some distance.
b.) Person runs with constant velocity some distance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Then you need to provide these sources that show these "different answers". We have no way of knowing if these sources are correct, if you've read them correctly, or if they are simply different situations.

If not, we too will simply be another "internet article" that gives you a different answer. How will you know which one is correct? Go to another forum and ask again?

Please note that in this forum, if you wish to discuss something that you've read or encountered, then a full reference to that source must be made for the discussion to have any meaning. If not, we are simply going by hearsay.

Zz.
 
If you carried a box at constant velocity, the net work on that box is zero (since the velocity was constant, acceleration was zero, and net force = 0 .. so work = F*distance = 0).

What confuses many people is: You do burn Calories running at a constant velocity. Your body did indeed do work. And you will indeed find this on any excerise resource listing the amount of work (Calories or Joules) different activities take.


The problem is this: due to biology and how our muscles work, it takes our muscles energy to exert a constant force ... even if we are not moving or accelerating. But if you went in there and modeled all the tiny pices of your body, work still equals force * distance. The equations are not violated.

This is akin to when students get to conservation of energy. Energy is not "destroyed" in situations with friction. If we modeled all the interactions, we'd see energy is indeed still conserved. It is just difficult to show in an easy way in an introductory lecture. Usually the hand-wavy explanation of "the energy goes into heat" is stated and we hope the students trust us enough till they learn more and can approach it in more depth if they are still interested.


EDIT:
Oh, I just realized another possibility. If you carry the box upstairs, or down stairs (or a hill, or slope, etc) then non-zero work is done on the box even if carried at a constant velocity. Is that what you meant?
 
JustinLevy,

thank you. i will get back to that.

ZapperZ,

Then you need to provide these sources that show these "different answers". We have no way of knowing if these sources are correct, if you've read them correctly, or if they are simply different situations.

to find sources I am talking about just pick up any textbook or find any article on the WWW, Wikipedia for example.
If not, we too will simply be another "internet article" that gives you a different answer. How will you know which one is correct? Go to another forum and ask again?

i can answer your questions,
but i asked my question 1st, so, if you know the answer, can you please tell us?
Please note that in this forum, if you wish to discuss something that you've read or encountered, then a full reference to that source must be made for the discussion to have any meaning. If not, we are simply going by hearsay.
i do not wish to discuss internet articles,
im asking simple question, can you please answer it? anyway, here is reference:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=physics+work+force+&btnG=Search
 
Last edited:
That's not good enough. What ZZ said in that first quote is correct: we have no way of knowing what the real issue is here unless we see the sources you speak of. PM one of us the actual sources where you've seen this contradiction and we'll comment/reopen the thread. Otherwise, Justin's answer is probably sufficient as it point's out the most common misunderstandings people have about this issue.
 
Sione said:
JustinLevy,

thank you. i will get back to that.




ZapperZ,



to find sources I am talking about just pick up any textbook or find any article on the WWW, Wikipedia for example.
I just looked at 3 different textbooks, two websites other than Wikipedia, and Wikipedia. They all said the same thing. I did not find that "different internet articles and online textbooks suggest different answers."



i can answer your questions,
but i asked my question 1st, so, if you know the answer, can you please tell us?
In what world do you ask for help and then put conditions on what help you will accept?

i do not wish to discuss internet articles,
im asking simple question, can you please answer it?


anyway, here is reference:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=physics+work+force+&btnG=Search
And all the references there say the same thing that Justin Levy said. There is still no indication that "different internet articles and online textbooks suggest different answers."
 
Energy, Work and Human Locomotion

There is this question I was about to answer, however it got locked in the meantime.

this is not homework,
different internet articles and online textbooks suggest different answers.

Calculate work done:
a.) Person carries a box with constant velocity some distance.
b.) Person runs with constant velocity some distance.

Energy is the ability to do work or to cause change.

There is quite a bit of work going on there, some positive, some negative, but work done is most certainly not zero. Total work done is most definitely some positive number proportional to how much energy it took to 'cause change'.


f you carried a box at constant velocity, the net work on that box is zero (since the velocity was constant, acceleration was zero, and net force = 0 .. so work = F*distance = 0).

What confuses many people is: You do burn Calories running at a constant velocity. Your body did indeed do work. And you will indeed find this on any exercise resource listing the amount of work (Calories or Joules) different activities take.

Obviously, as this person suggests, there is a confusion. Formula given, and the first answer says the "work done _on the box" is zero. Then later he says, some work must have been done as energy is consumed during exercise. I agree with the second part of this answer. Since energy is the ability to do work, then mere fact that it takes energy to perform human locomotion means some work gets done. Therefore, work done is not zero.


And all the references there say the same thing that Justin Levy said. There is still no indication that "different internet articles and online textbooks suggest different answers."

I'm not really sure what reference says, questions are not phrased equally. This is where you can get different answers to the "same" question. In most cases mistake is in the question when it was not specific enough, the rest of confusion comes out of assumptions, as usual.

Some are assuming "work done" means "work done by gravity", others assume it means "work done by person", and by making this assumption they will actually both fail to consider total work done and answer the question properly.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
846
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
951
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K