Conservation of energy and change in energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conservation of energy principle using a falling ball as an example. When the ball is released from a height, its potential energy decreases while its kinetic energy increases, illustrating energy transformation rather than destruction. Upon reaching the ground, the ball's energy is not lost; instead, it converts into other forms, such as thermal energy or sound, depending on the nature of the collision. Inelastic collisions result in energy loss to heat, while elastic collisions allow for the ball to bounce back with retained kinetic energy. Ultimately, energy is conserved throughout the process, merely changing forms rather than being destroyed.
physio
Messages
68
Reaction score
1
Suppose i have a ball of mass m and if i left the ball at a particular height 'h', then i have done some work on it or by the law of conservation of energy i have transferred some energy to the ball. Now suppose i release the ball isn't the energy that i have transferred changing because it moves with a particular acceleration and hence a changing velocity and also the potential energy keeps on decreasing as the height decreases, then doesn't the energy necessarily change?

So how is energy constant. The ball falls down and is then at rest and hence has no potential energy or kinetic energy (mgh=0; 1/2mv^2=0), hence the potential energy given to the ball mgh now becomes 0 (mgh-->0). Thus energy has been destroyed isn't it??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
physio said:
Suppose i have a ball of mass m and if i left the ball at a particular height 'h', then i have done some work on it or by the law of conservation of energy i have transferred some energy to the ball. Now suppose i release the ball isn't the energy that i have transferred changing because it moves with a particular acceleration and hence a changing velocity and also the potential energy keeps on decreasing as the height decreases, then doesn't the energy necessarily change?

So how is energy constant. The ball falls down and is then at rest and hence has no potential energy or kinetic energy (mgh=0; 1/2mv^2=0), hence the potential energy given to the ball mgh now becomes 0 (mgh-->0). Thus energy has been destroyed isn't it??

The velocity increases thus decrease in potential energy is balanced by increase in kinetic energy
 
But what about the bottom most position? The velocity is zero and also the height is zero (object at rest). Where did the mgh + 1/2mv^2 go?
 
There must be a force to "brake" the object to a halt. Have you seen an object just stop when it reaches the ground. Try dropping a glass.
 
physio said:
So how is energy constant. The ball falls down and is then at rest and hence has no potential energy or kinetic energy (mgh=0; 1/2mv^2=0), hence the potential energy given to the ball mgh now becomes 0 (mgh-->0). Thus energy has been destroyed isn't it??

If the ball is made of putty or something like that, it smushes to a stop when it hits the ground. The collision with the ground is completely inelastic, and the kinetic energy of the ball is converted to thermal energy ("heat") and a bit of sound energy.

If the ball and the ground are both, say, steel, the collision is elastic and the ball bounces back up with almost as much KE just after the bounce as it had just before the bounce. In practice no collision is completely elastic, so you get a little bit of energy loss to "heat".
 
Thanks...^
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
323
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
967
Back
Top