Friction/heat kinetic energy - reactive force

[vela]

Thanks for your condescending reply. I was not looking for insults I simply had what I thought was a valid question.

Sorry if it came off as condescending. It wasn't intended as an insult. No one is born with a knowledge of physics, and for many people, it takes years to learn (correct) physics. There's no shame in not knowing basic physics. (Indeed I'd say most of my friends and family don't.) But if you really do want to understand a basic physical explanation to your question, your reasoning does have to be more sophisticated than "energy and force are related, so if one goes up, the other must as well."

 

[kuruman]

Take a hammer and nail, I move the hammer at a constant speed with a certain mass this is kinetic energy or potential energy, it hits the nail with a Force (Newtons) the action of the nail has to be the reactive force causing
the nail to move into the wood with the transferred kinetic energy, or am I wrong.

The hammer has some speed when it hits the nail. As a result of the collision, the hammer transfers some its kinetic energy and momentum to the nail during the time interval $\Delta t$ they are in contact. There is a force acting on the nail during that interval which causes the nail to accelerate. It is that force that drives the nail into the wood and varies with time. However you can calculate an average force exerted by the hammer on the nail which is the momentum change of the hammer divided by the time interval $\Delta t$. As for the kinetic energy of the nail, it very quickly dissipates into heat.

That the full blown description. There is no no need for a "reactive" force anywhere.

 

[TonyCross]

No, heat does not reduce force in general.

There was a mention of brake fade, but that is not heat reducing force that is heat altering the material properties in an undesirable way. In other words, brake fade is due to a specific technology not a general physical principle.

In particular, it seems like you are thinking that the “action” force will be larger than the “reaction” force because heat will reduce the “reaction” force. This is incorrect. The “action” and “reaction” forces are equal and opposite.

Thanks for your reply, I didn't think there would be a difference in the action/reaction force, I also see that material properties in brakes system may cause brake fade. Are you saying that any heat in the brakes has no relation to the loss of kinetic energy of the vehicle while slowing down?

 

[TonyCross]

No, "work done on the nail" is the process, not the result. It is being done only while the nail is in motion. Once finished, then what?

equilibrium assuming the hammer doesn't rebound.

 

[TonyCross]

The hammer has some speed when it hits the nail. As a result of the collision, the hammer transfers some its kinetic energy and momentum to the nail during the time interval $\Delta t$ they are in contact. There is a force acting on the nail during that interval which causes the nail to accelerate. It is that force that drives the nail into the wood and varies with time. However you can calculate an average force exerted by the hammer on the nail which is the momentum change of the hammer divided by the time interval $\Delta t$. As for the kinetic energy of the nail, it very quickly dissipates into heat.

That the full blown description. There is no no need for a "reactive" force anywhere.

Sorry I have to disagree, your description is great however:
I quote you (There is a force acting on the nail during that interval) for EVERY force there is an opposing force.
when you walk the ground forces back at you, if you fire a canon there is a opposing force, are hammers exempt?

 

[Dale]

Are you saying that any heat in the brakes has no relation to the loss of kinetic energy of the vehicle while slowing down?

No, the heat is approximately equal to the loss of kinetic energy. It does not cause a loss of force.

 

[TonyCross]

No, the heat is approximately equal to the loss of kinetic energy. It does not cause a loss of force.

So the heat would cause the vehicle to lose some kinetic energy in the transfer process.

 

[russ_watters]

equilibrium assuming the hammer doesn't rebound.

Yes, but the question we're trying to answer is: where is the energy now?

So the heat would cause the vehicle to lose some kinetic energy in the transfer process.

That's a scrambled order of events. It's kinetic energy -> work -> heat.

 

[TonyCross]

Yes, but the question we're trying to answer is: where is the energy now?

The heat created will dissipate into the environment, not sure how you can quantify how tight the nail is in the wood though.

 

[russ_watters]

The heat created will dissipate into the environment, not sure how you can quantify how tight the nail is in the wood though.

Right. There is some temporary deformation of the wood that absorbs some of the energy, but it generally isn't much.

 

[TonyCross]

Right. There is some temporary deformation of the wood that absorbs some of the energy, but it generally isn't much.

Because you cannot create or destroy energy I guess the nail would need similar force to remove it.

 

[russ_watters]

Because you cannot create or destroy energy I guess the nail would need similar force to remove it.

Yes, and you'll notice the wood doesn't completely return to its prior condition/shape, so a lot of the deformation is permanent.

 

[Dale]

So the heat would cause the vehicle to lose some kinetic energy in the transfer process.

Yes, heat is a type of energy transfer. In this case energy is being transferred from kinetic energy to thermal energy. So in this case heat reduces kinetic energy. It does not reduce force.

 

[TonyCross]

Yes, heat is a type of energy transfer. In this case energy is being transferred from kinetic energy to thermal energy. So in this case heat reduces kinetic energy. It does not reduce force.

Thanks, that is the answer to my initial question, however I may have worded it in the wrong way.

 

[kuruman]

Sorry I have to disagree, your description is great however:
I quote you (There is a force acting on the nail during that interval) for EVERY force there is an opposing force.
when you walk the ground forces back at you, if you fire a canon there is a opposing force, are hammers exempt?

Of course hammers are not exempt. However my description of what happens concentrated on the nail. You wish me to talk about what happens to the hammer, no problem. The Newton third law counterpart of the force exerted by the hammer on the nail is an equal and opposite force exerted by the nail on the hammer. That force acts in a direction opposite to the velocity of the hammer, which means there is an acceleration opposite to the velocity of the hammer the end result being that the hammer decelerates rapidly and moves at the speed of the nail.

When you talk about forces you have to be clear about what your system is, that is on what entity these forces act. If the system is the nail, it is acted upon by the hammer, the surface into which it is driven and gravity. If the system is the hammer, it is acted upon by the hand that holds it, the nail that it strikes and gravity. Once you sort out (a) what object (system) you are talking about and (b) what forces act on the system, Newton's second law takes over and shows you what the acceleration of the system will be under the action of these forces. Needless to say that somewhere out there, outside the system you will find the Newton's 3rd law counterparts of all the forces that act on your system but they have nothing to do with the acceleration of your chosen system.

You will achieve clarity of thought if you decide exactly what your system is before you consider the forces acting on it. That's a first step. The second step is to consider all the pieces of the universe that can act on your system and count them. Then you look at the forces, one per piece of universe, that act on this system.

 

[jbriggs444]

Because you cannot create or destroy energy I guess the nail would need similar force to remove it.

No. That does not follow.

Energy conservation says that the energy present in the hammer will still be there (as heat, stress, vibrations, residual motion or whatever). It does not say that the energy required to insert a nail is the same as the energy required to extract it.

In the typical case of a nail sunk into fresh wood and withdrawn shortly thereafter, the squeezing force of wood on nail will be similar on the way in and on the way out. The friction of wood on nail will then be similar on the way in and on the way out. So one would expect the required work done both ways to be similar.

But if you've ever pulled a nail from a piece of rotten wood, you'll know that the work done on extraction does not have to be as great as the work done on insertion. And if you've ever tried to extract a bolt from a tapped hole after it has rusted in, the work done to extract can be greater than the work done on insertion.

 

[Dale]

Then you look at the forces, one per piece of universe, that act on this system.

Sometimes an external body can interact with the system through multiple forces. Like the normal force and the gravitational force from the Earth acting on a box on the ground.

 

[kuruman]

Sometimes an external body can interact with the system through multiple forces. Like the normal force and the gravitational force from the Earth acting on a box on the ground.

That's a tricky one. I would call the ground "Surface" as I would call the surface of a table that is firmly attached to the Earth. To me "Earth" gives rise to $\frac{GMm}{r^2}$ (or $mg$). Strictly speaking you are, of course, correct.

 

[A.T.]

Take a hammer and nail, I move the hammer at a constant speed with a certain mass this is kinetic energy or potential energy, it hits the nail with a Force (Newtons) the action of the nail has to be the reactive force causing
the nail to move into the wood with the transferred kinetic energy, or am I wrong.

Now you have three bodies and two 3rd law pairs. Your action and reaction labels make no sense, but they are meaningless physically anyway.

 

[TonyCross]

Of course hammers are not exempt. However my description of what happens concentrated on the nail. You wish me to talk about what happens to the hammer, no problem. The Newton third law counterpart of the force exerted by the hammer on the nail is an equal and opposite force exerted by the nail on the hammer. That force acts in a direction opposite to the velocity of the hammer, which means there is an acceleration opposite to the velocity of the hammer the end result being that the hammer decelerates rapidly and moves at the speed of the nail.

When you talk about forces you have to be clear about what your system is, that is on what entity these forces act. If the system is the nail, it is acted upon by the hammer, the surface into which it is driven and gravity. If the system is the hammer, it is acted upon by the hand that holds it, the nail that it strikes and gravity. Once you sort out (a) what object (system) you are talking about and (b) what forces act on the system, Newton's second law takes over and shows you what the acceleration of the system will be under the action of these forces. Needless to say that somewhere out there, outside the system you will find the Newton's 3rd law counterparts of all the forces that act on your system but they have nothing to do with the acceleration of your chosen system.

You will achieve clarity of thought if you decide exactly what your system is before you consider the forces acting on it. That's a first step. The second step is to consider all the pieces of the universe that can act on your system and count them. Then you look at the forces, one per piece of universe, that act on this system.

Thanks for you detailed clarification, much appreciated.

 

[haruspex]

I'm a bit late to this thread, but from reading your (@TonyCross) references to reactive force and some of your examples I get the impression you are confusing the force exerted by the wood, squash court wall, whatever, at the time of the impact with what happens later.

As a squash ball compresses, the lost KE is going into internal energy of the gas, deformation of the rubber, and some heat. The reaction force from the wall is equal and opposite to the force the ball exerts on the wall.
As the ball rebounds, the forces between the wall and the ball are smaller than at the corresponding point during the compression phase.
This is an example of hysteresis. If you were to plot a graph of force against degree of compression you would get a closed curve. The area inside the curve represents the energy lost as heat and increased internal energy of the gas. The raised internal energy also gets lost as heat as the ball cools.

Similarly with the nail in the wood. As the nail moves into the wood, the action and reaction are equal and opposite. But in this case there is negligible rebound.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Reactive force is important as the object in motion applies a force to the object it collides with this is known as reactive force, my question relates directly to the reactive force.

You want to distinguish between the Force and the Reactive force. But, for a start, they will be equal and in opposite directions. But also where is the Kinetic Energy actually dissipated? The Power (rate of dissipation) will be the Force times the relative velocities of the pads and the discs. That energy will be shared between the 'fixed' pads and the 'moving' disc (or whichever other pair you are discussion). How would you (would you want to?) distinguish between the work done on the pads and on the discs? The same magnitudes of force ('reactive ' or 'other') and velocities are involved for each. Each will get hot although the pad will heat up quicker because of its thermal mass and also the pad material will be designed to be more lossy. But what if you had steel pads and a steel disc? It's much more than just trying to find a dichotomy between the two forces involved.

 

[TonyCross]

I'm a bit late to this thread, but from reading your (@TonyCross) references to reactive force and some of your examples I get the impression you are confusing the force exerted by the wood, squash court wall, whatever, at the time of the impact with what happens later.

As a squash ball compresses, the lost KE is going into internal energy of the gas, deformation of the rubber, and some heat. The reaction force from the wall is equal and opposite to the force the ball exerts on the wall.
As the ball rebounds, the forces between the wall and the ball are smaller than at the corresponding point during the compression phase.
This is an example of hysteresis. If you were to plot a graph of force against degree of compression you would get a closed curve. The area inside the curve represents the energy lost as heat and increased internal energy of the gas. The raised internal energy also gets lost as heat as the ball cools.

Similarly with the nail in the wood. As the nail moves into the wood, the action and reaction are equal and opposite. But in this case there is negligible rebound.

Hi,
Thanks for your reply, re: the squash ball example, may I ask the following question, if we know the mass of the ball (25gram) and the velocity of the ball (50 m/s) just before it impacts the wall and we then have a total impact which may last let's say 10 milliseconds let's say for example that the initial compression phase of the ball takes 8 milliseconds and the rebound takes 2 milliseconds we could perhaps plot Force(y)/t(x) on a graph to show the unknown maximum value of F. Using the Impulse formula {I=F.delta t} Do you think that any heat generated by the ball in this example would detract from the area of this graph?

This is around about way of asking is the total impact force/reaction force with the wall less, the hotter the ball gets?

 

[A.T.]

This is around about way of asking is the total impact force/reaction force with the wall less, the hotter the ball gets?

If more heat is generated, the ball will have less kinetic energy so the total transmitted impulse is less. But this doesn't determine the force, which also depends on the duration of the collision.

 

[Dale]

This is around about way of asking is the total impact force/reaction force with the wall less, the hotter the ball gets?

For your specific example, yes, but this is not a general rule. It is easy to come up with alternative examples that violate the rule.

Remember, heat is a transfer of energy. Impulse/force is a transfer of momentum. Those are two separate quantities. They can be transferred independently.

 

[haruspex]

is the total impact force/reaction force with the wall less, the hotter the ball gets?

First, let's get the terms clear.

There is a reaction force from the wall all the time the two are in contact, and at each instant it is equal and opposite to the force the ball exerts on the wall.
I think you mean the rebound forces, i.e. the force pair (action and reaction) between ball and wall during the ball's expansion phase.

By "impact force/reaction force" I presume you mean the normal force generally, i.e. not separating compression phase and expansion phase.

Next, how are you defining total force here? The integral wrt time will give the change in momentum, while wrt to displacement will give change in KE.

Not sure what you are asking re "the hotter the ball gets". During early play the ball gets hotter, increasing its internal pressure and improving its bounce. The duration reduces, so the forces increase.
If you are asking how the amount of the temperature increase during a single bounce correlates with the magnitude of the forces, yes, I think that a cold ball will bounce less efficiently and so heat up more, and the forces will be less. But I see no general principle here applicable to other contexts; it is just a result of the characteristics of a squash ball. Is that what you had in mind in post #55, @Dale ?

we could perhaps plot Force(y)/t(x) on a graph to show the unknown maximum value of F. Using the Impulse formula {I=F.delta t}

That formula will only give you the average force over each time interval. You could model it as a spring to find the curves for each phase (one against time, one against displacement). As it goes from compression phase to expansion phase, the force will drop fairly suddenly, so the force/displacement curve will return via a lower path.

Do you think that any heat generated by the ball in this example would detract from the area of this graph?

The area bounded by the whole curve in the force/displacement graph shows the KE lost. I'm not a thermodynamicist, but I believe the right description is that during compression KE is turned into internal energy, some of the rubber, but mostly of the gas in the ball. During expansion, most of that turns back into KE. What remains as internal energy will dissipate out over time as heat.

 

[TonyCross]

If more heat is generated, the ball will have less kinetic energy so the total transmitted impulse is less. But this doesn't determine the force, which also depends on the duration of the collision.

I'm sorry I still cannot understand why a loss of kinetic energy doesn't determine the force, surely more velocity more force, less velocity less force.
I agree it depends on the duration of the collision, however Force in this example is not a fixed value it peaks at a certain value, during the upramp to this maximum Force point of the graph, kinetic energy is being lost in the form of velocity (can't be mass) due to the heating effect on the ball. The total Force is the total area contained under the curve on the graph. My contention is that the graphed Force area must be less due to the loss of kinetic energy in the heating process.
Consider a bicycle pump, you apply a force/time to the handle this causes the tyre to inflate, however it also
causes the pump to experience an increase in temperature, the force used on the pump must surely be divided into 2 parts - air into the tyre and some of the energy must cause the heating of the pump. If the pump didn't heat up, the tyre would be easier to inflate. Hence this does determine the force.

 

[TonyCross]

First, let's get the terms clear.

There is a reaction force from the wall all the time the two are in contact, and at each instant it is equal and opposite to the force the ball exerts on the wall.
I think you mean the rebound forces, i.e. the force pair (action and reaction) between ball and wall during the ball's expansion phase.

By "impact force/reaction force" I presume you mean the normal force generally, i.e. not separating compression phase and expansion phase.

Next, how are you defining total force here? The integral wrt time will give the change in momentum, while wrt to displacement will give change in KE.

Not sure what you are asking re "the hotter the ball gets". During early play the ball gets hotter, increasing its internal pressure and improving its bounce. The duration reduces, so the forces increase.
If you are asking how the amount of the temperature increase during a single bounce correlates with the magnitude of the forces, yes, I think that a cold ball will bounce less efficiently and so heat up more, and the forces will be less. But I see no general principle here applicable to other contexts; it is just a result of the characteristics of a squash ball. Is that what you had in mind in post #55, @Dale ?

That formula will only give you the average force over each time interval. You could model it as a spring to find the curves for each phase (one against time, one against displacement). As it goes from compression phase to expansion phase, the force will drop fairly suddenly, so the force/displacement curve will return via a lower path.

The area bounded by the whole curve in the force/displacement graph shows the KE lost. I'm not a thermodynamicist, but I believe the right description is that during compression KE is turned into internal energy, some of the rubber, but mostly of the gas in the ball. During expansion, most of that turns back into KE. What remains as internal energy will dissipate out over time as heat.

Hi,
Sorry if I am not making myself clear.
Thanks for the answers, I was only considering a single event, the instance when the cold ball makes contact with the wall, where the ball compresses and heats up then expands and rebounds.
I didn't want to consider the gas in the ball or the effect of gravity or the angle the ball hits the wall, just one question if the ball did not heat up would the ball hit the wall harder? Or perhaps the only result would be a loss in Ke on the rebound? My thought is that because the heating takes place during the compression phase, or the impact phase, this loss of Ke of the ball would impact on the force the ball contacts the wall, hence hitting the wall softer.

 

[Dale]

I see no general principle here applicable to other contexts; it is just a result of the characteristics of a squash ball. Is that what you had in mind in post #55, @Dale ?

Yes, that is what I meant.

 

[Dale]

just one question if the ball did not heat up would the ball hit the wall harder?

Yes. For that one question the answer is yes.

Just be aware that this is not a general principle and it cannot be applied in other contexts.