How Much Energy is Spent Holding 1kg for an Hour?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jc.int
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
AI Thread Summary
Holding 1 kilogram at a height of one meter for an hour does not involve any physical work in terms of displacement, as the object remains stationary. However, the human body expends energy due to the inefficiency of muscle contractions required to maintain the position, leading to fatigue. The energy expenditure is influenced more by individual factors like muscle tone and metabolism rather than the weight itself. In contrast, inanimate objects like a table do not consume energy to support weight. Thus, while no work is done in a physics sense, biological systems still require energy to maintain muscle tension.
jc.int
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
hello,
If I hold 1kilogram at one meter of the groud during an hour, what would be the theoretical energy I am spending (in joules for example)?

Thank you,
Jaimie
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're not doing any work because the displacement of the object is 0.

However, your muscles, as a biological system, are inefficient. To just bear a load without moving it, they must alternately contract and relax rapidly. As a result, your body expends chemical energy and you do end up feeling tired.
 
cepheid said:
You're not doing any work because the displacement of the object is 0.

However, your muscles, as a biological system, are inefficient. To just bear a load without moving it, they must alternately contract and relax rapidly. As a result, your body expends chemical energy and you do end up feeling tired.

Indeed. And as a result, the amount of energy expended depends more on your muscle tone, circulation, metabolism, etc. then on simple physics of the weight and gravity. Place the same kilogram on a solid table for an hour and it becomes obvious that no energy is being expended (the table does not run down its batteries/use up its fuel, etc.)
 
I agree with you but when a helicopter holds a weight it is using energy to compense the gravity force, isn't it?
 
Yes, because once again, it is inefficient. A helium balloon can hold a weight as well, and it would require no energy input to do so.
 
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top