Energy transformations

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the energy transformations involved when a cyclist travels at constant speed. It establishes that while the cyclist does not convert chemical energy into kinetic energy due to a lack of acceleration, energy is indeed transformed into heat and sound energy due to friction and air resistance. The cyclist's exertion counters frictional forces, indicating that chemical energy from food is converted into mechanical energy, which is then dissipated as heat. This highlights the complexity of energy transformations in a cycling scenario.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's laws of motion
  • Basic principles of energy transformation
  • Knowledge of friction and its effects on motion
  • Concept of mechanical energy and its forms
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the laws of thermodynamics related to energy conversion
  • Study the effects of friction on mechanical systems
  • Explore the relationship between chemical energy and mechanical work
  • Investigate energy loss mechanisms in cycling, including heat and sound
USEFUL FOR

Students studying physics, particularly those interested in mechanics and energy transformations, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to energy in motion.

Kushal
Messages
438
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



It is often stated that many forms of transport transform chemical energy into kinetic energy. Explain why a cyclist traveling at constant speed is not making this transformation. Explain what transformations of energy are taking place.


The Attempt at a Solution



1. constant speed => no acceleration => no resultant force => no work done
2. constant speed => no change in kinetic energy.

i came up with two answers for the first part. i don't know which one of them i should choose.

for the second part, i think that the transformation involved is that of something being transformed into heat due to friction. but i don't know what is this 'something'.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The thing here is that you are contradicting yourself. Firstly, you say that constant speed = no acceleration. However, the work done is defined as Force x displacement. Although you are right that there is no net force, there is a constant force exerted by the cyclist so as to counteract frictional forces. If you consider no work to be done due to constant velocity, you need to consider that there is no friction. But in your answer for the 2nd question, you again assume friction to act.

I think the question is wrong.. because we are converting the food we eat into mechanical energy with which we can, say, ride a cycle. The food has 'chemical energy', which is converted into chemical energy. And hence, if the cyclist is working against friction, then the conversion of energy is from chemical to kinetic energy. however, there are many other forms it is converted to... [for ex. heat radiation.. as body temperature rises], but that need not be considered for now.
 
that's what i initially thought. there has to be work done by the cyclist. but i needed an answer... :) at least i would get some marks somewhere.

there is no gain in Ek since there is no increase in speed. Maybe i should consider the direct conversion of chemical energy into heat and sound energy because of friction and air resistance.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K