How Does Force Influence Potential Energy in Work Dynamics?

AI Thread Summary
Work is defined as the product of force and displacement in the direction of that force, with only the component of force aligned with displacement contributing to work done. Potential energy is the stored energy in a system that can do work, represented as the product of force and distance. In a scenario where a box is moved horizontally on a table, it does not gain potential energy because the force applied does not change its height. Forces like gravity have associated potential energy, while friction does not, as it does negative work by opposing motion. The discussion highlights that if friction is the only force acting on a moving box, it performs negative work, reducing the box's kinetic energy.
chandran
Messages
137
Reaction score
1
I just thought of work & energy as follows


work
A force F when moves through a distance x we say that work is done. In this we say that the component of force acting along the direction of displacement does the work. Why we say that? What the other component does?

potential energy
we say that potential energy of a system is its potential to do work. When we apply a force to a mass and the mass moves thro a distance x the the stored potential energy is F x X

so i say that the mass has the potential to do a work of F x X.

I imagine a situation where a box on a table is moved by a distance X horizontally. The box is not having any potential energy to do work. Why is this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
chandran said:
work
A force F when moves through a distance x we say that work is done. In this we say that the component of force acting along the direction of displacement does the work. Why we say that? What the other component does?
Whatever it's doing, it's not transferring mechanical energy to an object.
potential energy
we say that potential energy of a system is its potential to do work. When we apply a force to a mass and the mass moves thro a distance x the the stored potential energy is F x X
Not all forces have an associated potential energy. For example: Gravity does; friction does not.


I imagine a situation where a box on a table is moved by a distance X horizontally. The box is not having any potential energy to do work. Why is this?
The situation is not fully specified. Are you exerting a force F in the direction of its displacement? If you are exerting a force F (and that's the only horizontal force) then work you do goes into increasing the kinetic energy, not the potential energy.
 
work
A force F when moves through a distance x we say that work is done. In this we say that the component of force acting along the direction of displacement does the work. Why we say that? What the other component does?

In order that the direction of displacement not be the direction the force is pointing, there must be some other force acting (if you push horizontally, and the object moves up an inclined plane, the plane is pushing back perpendicular to itself and is counter-acting the component of force in that direction.). The only net force is in the direction of motion.
 
docal,
the box i referred comes to a stop because of friction. so the kinetic energy change is zero. so can i say that the force which had pushed the box doesn't do any work?
 
chandran said:
the box i referred comes to a stop because of friction. so the kinetic energy change is zero. so can i say that the force which had pushed the box doesn't do any work?
I'm not sure I understand the situation. If the box is coming to a stop, how can the kinetic energy change be zero? If the only force on the box is friction, then it does negative work on the box, bringing it to rest.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top