Energy conservation law violated(seems to be)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the apparent violation of the energy conservation law in a system involving a charged disc and sphere. When a positive charge induces a negative charge on the disc, the attractive force between them varies with the charge's position. Although the net work done during one vibration of the charge is zero, energy is dissipated as heat due to the current flowing in the wire, raising questions about the source of this energy. The conversation suggests that oscillations can be dampened through electric resistance, impacting both the electrical and mechanical aspects of the system. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the complexities of energy transfer and conservation in dynamic systems.
sazmat
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
the charge(say positive) in figure induces negative charge on the disc and positive on sphere, the net force on charge is attractive towards the disc and is a function of position, now if someone moves the charge the amount of charge on disc changes accordingly and force changes its magnitude but remains attractive, if same person vibrates the charge on the line shown the net work done during one vibration is zero, but energy has been dissipated in form of heat due to the current that flowed in wire as the charge on disc changes magnitude, where did that energy came from as external work done is zero?

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=279732152132135&set=o.146941178686127&type=1&theater
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no figure in the thread.
My guess: If you have an oscillation (from the mechanical separation?) and damp this (with finite electric resistance), you will damp the oscillation (including the mechanical part).
 
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...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
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...
Back
Top