Does Exerting Force on a Stationary Object Require Energy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peppino
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Exerting force on a stationary object does not require energy in the context of physics because work is defined as force applied over a distance. When a force is applied to an object that does not move, such as pushing against a wall or holding a heavy box, no work is done, despite the energy expended by the muscles. This energy is used to create the force but is converted into heat rather than performing work on the object. The distinction between energy and work is crucial; energy is the potential to do work, while work requires movement. Understanding these concepts is essential for grasping the principles of physics related to force and motion.
Peppino
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
I'm a little confused about what exactly work/energy is. I understand that if I exert 10 N o a box over a distance of 10 m, 100 J of energy are expended. However, say I exert 10 N on a 100 kg box, and it does not move, why is no energy expended? Such an action certainly requires energy?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Energy is transferred in the form of chemical reactions in your body that fuel your exerting of force. However, no work is done on the 100-kg box due to the fact that there is no movement. The force of static friction counteracts the force you exert.
 
First, realize that physicists have a very specific mathematical meaning of "work" and "energy" and they are not the same as "effort".

You should meditate on the case of a table. A table can hold things up indefinitely without expending any energy at all. No energy is required, because while the table is pushing up on the object, the object isn't moving, so no work is being done.

It may be tiring to hold the same object stationary in your outstretched palm, but that doesn't mean that your palm is doing work *on the object,* any more than the table is doing work on the object when it supports the object. You get tired because the biology of your muscles is such that they need to burn fuel just to create a force in the first place.

If the object doesn't move, your muscles burn chemical fuel, releasing energy, but that energy just ends up heating up your muscles instead of doing work on the object.
 
Energy is the ability, the potential do do work, rather than actually doing work. So an electromagnmetic field, for example, contains energy, but it might just sit there without doing any work.

Work is defined as a force times a distance. So in general energy has the ability to exert such a force, but unless something is moved it does not fit the definition. You can push, for example, as hard as you like against a wall but unless it moves the definition says no work has been done. But as noted above, you HAVE expended energy trying to push it.

A closely related concept is power...work expended per unit time...So if you perform some movement,some work, like accelerating a car, the faster you do it the more POWER is expended. These definitions take some time to get used to, sort of like the distinction between 'affect' and 'effect'...
 
For simple comparison, I think the same thought process can be followed as a block slides down a hill, - for block down hill, simple starting PE of mgh to final max KE 0.5mv^2 - comparing PE1 to max KE2 would result in finding the work friction did through the process. efficiency is just 100*KE2/PE1. If a mousetrap car travels along a flat surface, a starting PE of 0.5 k th^2 can be measured and maximum velocity of the car can also be measured. If energy efficiency is defined by...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K