How to determine energy required to hold an object in air

  • Thread starter Thread starter xw3850
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Air Energy
AI Thread Summary
Holding a heavy object stationary in air requires energy, primarily due to the biological processes of the human body, even though no physical work is done on the object itself. The energy expenditure is linked to maintaining muscle tension and body stability, which ultimately results in heat production. While a crane can hold a mass without energy loss, human muscles operate differently, requiring continuous energy input to sustain contractions. The calculation of energy costs involves understanding the power input and output of the system, but this can vary significantly based on individual physiology and mechanics. Thus, while there is no work done on the object, the energy expended by the person is real and measurable.
xw3850
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
For me to hold a heavy object stationary in air is tough and eventually I will get tired. So it seems I am expending energy. But then how much? I discovered it was quite hard (for me anyway) to calculate how much energy it costs to hold the object when there is no work.

The only thing I could come up with requires knowledge about the system that is creating the force that opposes gravity. I suppose if you can determine how much power is going into the system and how much is going out then the difference is what it costs (J/s) to create the force to hold the object per unit of time.

Is this really the only way to do it? It seems like there should be a better way because this is more like an efficiency calculation and I know different system would require different amounts of energy (per unit of time) to create the same force.

I have a hunch I am missing something fundamental or making a mistake in my reasoning. Am I right?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The matter of the fact is that there is _no_ work being done when an object is just being suspended in mid-air. The feeling of expending energy is purely a biological concept, because in order to lift something we must displace our own bodies from its "equilibrium" (e.g. to stay upright and such). So yes, there is energy being expended, but none of that energy is really being transferred anywhere (not into the weights your carrying as their speed and gravitational potential remain the same), other than into heat as you sweat holding those weights up.

Would you expend more energy holding weights arms straight in front of you or just by tying them over your shoulders? If there's a discrepancy, would you owe it to the laws of physics or the mechanics/biology/anatomy of your body?
 
Human muscles work not like machines. Let say a crane holds a mass in the air, it does no work, no energy lost. But if a man hold something off the ground, he creates work, the work turns into heat. The muscle works by continuous contraction of many many small cells that requires energy (probably chemical energy) and exhausts heat.
Sorry I do not know exactly how the muscle cells work.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top