How Does Gravitational Potential Energy Convert into Kinetic Energy?

AI Thread Summary
Gravitational potential energy is defined as the energy an object possesses due to its position, specifically its ability to do work when acted upon by a force, such as gravity. This potential energy is accumulated through work done on the object to elevate it to that position. The conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy occurs when the gravitational force acts on the object, allowing it to move and perform work. The discussion clarifies that potential energy itself does not do work; rather, it has the potential to do work when released. Understanding this distinction helps in grasping the concept of energy conversion in physics.
9huyna1
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi everybody, I'm reviewing for the MCAT (it's been a while), and I'm having a lot of trouble understanding potential energy.

In my review book (and a whole bunch of other googled sources), it defines energy as the capability to do work.
It also says work is something along the lines of, the transfer of energy.

On Wikipedia, I read that potential energy is the energy associated with an object due to its position.
So...putting it all together, potential energy is the capability of an object to do work due to its position.

I understand that the potential energy got there by doing work on the object, bringing it to its present position.
From what I understand, this potential energy is transferred to kinetic energy due to the gravitational force.

What I don't understand is... The definition says the potential energy is the object's ability to do work How is it doing work?

I thought the work (conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy) was due the gravitational force acting on the object.

Did I totally miss the point of all of this?

P.S. I forgot to mention (although I think it's similar for other types), I'm asking about gravitational potential energy.

Thank you in advanced.

Just a quick edit: I was wondering why the definition couldn't be something like:
Gravitational potential energy is the object's capability to have work done on it by gravity?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
That's why it is called potential rather than actual energy. The energy is 'stored' if you will until some action releases or converts it. If, for example, you compress a spring and then latch it so that it cannot expand, then the compressed spring contains some quantity of potential energy, which will remain stored as long as the latch is secure. Once the latch is released, then this stored energy will be converted into kinetic energy as the spring expands.
 
The definition says the potential energy is the object's ability to do work How is it doing work?

It's not doing work. It has the potential to do work.

You have the ability to pass a test but you're not actually taking a test at the moment.

Water held back behind a dam has potential energy. It's only converted to actual energy when allowed to flow through a turbine.
 
Thank you for your responses, I think I get it now.
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top