Is Energy Being Conserved in This Almost Paradox Scenario?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conservation of energy in a scenario involving a block being lifted with a constant force equal to its weight. Participants explore the implications of work done, gravitational potential energy, and the relationship between force and energy in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the block gains gravitational potential energy despite the net force being zero, questioning how this is possible.
  • Others clarify that the work done on the block is related to the applied force, which is equal to the gravitational force acting on it.
  • Some participants express confusion over the concept of net force and its relation to work done, with references to physics teachings that suggest no work is done when acceleration is zero.
  • A few participants propose that the total work done on the block should equal the change in potential energy, leading to discussions about the definitions of work and energy in this scenario.
  • There are suggestions that forces can be categorized into those that add energy to a system and those that do not, with varying interpretations of how this applies to the block's situation.
  • Some participants question whether gravity merely transforms energy between potential and kinetic forms, while others argue that this does not apply in the given problem.
  • One participant suggests that accurately analyzing the energy and work situation could resolve the perceived paradox of energy conservation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, with multiple competing views on the nature of work, energy, and the implications of the forces acting on the block. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the interpretation of work done and energy conservation in this scenario.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding assumptions about the system, the definitions of work and energy, and the conditions under which forces act. Participants reference different educational backgrounds and interpretations of physics principles.

BrettD
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Imagine a 100N block rising at a constant velocity with a 100N force in the vertical direction pulling it, and 100N of gravity pulling it down. The net force on the block is 0, so work, force time displacement, is also 0. However, the block is rising and clearly gaining gravitational potential energy. How is this possible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The block doesn't lift itself. In other words, it's not doing the work to increase its own potential energy.
 
BrettD said:
Imagine a 100N block rising at a constant velocity with a 100N force in the vertical direction pulling it, and 100N of gravity pulling it down. The net force on the block is 0, so work, force time displacement, is also 0. However, the block is rising and clearly gaining gravitational potential energy. How is this possible?
Welcome to PF!

That's not what net force is for. The force applied to the block does work. The force of gravity absorbs that work in the form of gravitational potential energy.
 
What would the work done on the block be over x meters? Isn't the net force equal to mass times acceleration, which in this case is 0?
 
BrettD said:
What would the work done on the block be over x meters? Isn't the net force equal to mass times acceleration, which in this case is 0?
Yes, but again, net force isn't part of what you are asking. The work done is applied force times distance.
 
Don't confuse Force with Energy. There is a constant force (gravity) acting all the time. If you throw it up, it will gradually slow down as the Kinetic Energy it started with changes to Potential (weight times the distance it rises) At the maximum height, the KE is all used up.
If you use a motor to raise it, the upwards force will be the same as the weight and the work done will be mgh. (Assume, for a start, it is all done very slowly and that you can ignore any kinetic energy but a real situation - like a lift / elevator will involve a speeding up and slowing down at the ends of the trip so the forces will not be constant.
 
In a physics problem like similar to the block, where the acceleration was always near zero, my physics teacher said that no work was done because there was no acceleration, and the work from gravity canceled out the work done by the upwards force.
 
BrettD said:
What would the work done on the block be over x meters? Isn't the net force equal to mass times acceleration, which in this case is 0?
The net force you exert in lifting the block is equal to mg=100N up, and net force times distance h is mgh. As previously said, the block doesn't lift itself so it doesn't make sense to take the net force on the block. The work done by the block is ziltch, the work done by you in the lifting the block is what increases its potential energy.

BrettD said:
In a physics problem like similar to the block, where the acceleration was always near zero, my physics teacher said that no work was done because there was no acceleration, and the work from gravity canceled out the work done by the upwards force.
What are the details of the similar problem?
 
NZ2c6d0.png

Regarding the question "What is the total work done on Throcky by all forces?" I originally thought it would be the change in mgh, but my Physics teacher said that because he's in equilibrium between the force F and gravity, net force on him is 0, and so is work.
 
  • #10
BrettD said:
Regarding the question "What is the total work done on Throcky by all forces?" I originally thought it would be the change in mgh, but my Physics teacher said that because he's in equilibrium between the force F and gravity, net force on him is 0, and so is work.
The question asks for the total work done by all forces. Not a very common way of asking such a question, but in general, conservation of energy demands that the sum of works done by balanced forces must equal zero:

W(applied force) + W(gravity) = 0

But in your first example, you seemed confused about how the block can gain potential energy. Potential energy is the other work. So you seemed to be asking a different question.

The difference is whether you are asked to find one work, the other work or the sum of both.
 
  • #11
Wouldn't the total work done on the block be the same as the sum of the work done by each force?

Edit: ...and the total work done should be mgh, right?
 
  • #12
BrettD said:
Wouldn't the total work done on the block be the same as the sum of the work done by each force?
Yes.
Edit: ...and the total work done should be mgh, right?
No, as you said the total work is zero.

I'm not sure what the issue is here. You see that there are two forces being applied to the block, right? Do you see that the forces point in opposite directions? Do you see that asking about the total work is different from asking about the work done by the upward force?
 
  • #13
The issue is that I think these things:
1)Change in the block's potential energy is the total work done on the block (Assuming no changes in other forms of energy)
2)Total work done on the block is 0
3)Change in potential energy is mgh

Clearly, if 2 and 3 are true, the first can not.
 
  • #14
BrettD said:
The issue is that I think these things:
1)Change in the block's potential energy is the total work done on the block (Assuming no changes in other forms of energy)
2)Total work done on the block is 0
3)Change in potential energy is mgh

Clearly, if 2 and 3 are true, the first can not.
Right: #1 is not correct.
 
  • #15
Would it be correct to think of there being two types of forces, A) ones that add energy to a system and B) ones that do not add energy to a system?

In the block example, the outside force is type A and gravity is type B. Statement 1) could be changed to: 1)Change in the block's potential energy is the total work done of the block by type A forces (assuming no changes in other forms of energy)
 
  • #16
BrettD said:
Would it be correct to think of there being two types of forces, A) ones that add energy to a system and B) ones that do not add energy to a system?
Now you're asking about a 3rd separate issue ("the system") before apparently understanding either of the first two. It isn't useful here and you should avoid discussing "the system" until you first understand the other issues you were asking about.

Perhaps it would help if I asked you some questions:
1. What is the work done on the block by the applied force?
2. What is the work done on the block by gravity?
 
  • #17
Doesn't gravity just transform potential energy into kinetic energy, or vice versa?
 
  • #18
BrettD said:
Doesn't gravity just transform potential energy into kinetic energy, or vice versa?
In the problem you gave us, it didn't.
 
  • #19
Couldn't you imagine the force as adding kinetic energy to the block as gravity changes that energy to potential energy at the same rate? Would taht be a valid interpretation?
 
  • #20
BrettD said:
Couldn't you imagine the force as adding kinetic energy to the block as gravity changes that energy to potential energy at the same rate? Would taht be a valid interpretation?
No, it really isn't. If the speed is constant, it is constant.
 
  • #21
BrettD said:
Couldn't you imagine the force as adding kinetic energy to the block as gravity changes that energy to potential energy at the same rate? Would taht be a valid interpretation?
I think it could be more useful for you to come up with an actual scenario and then see if this 'almost paradox' you are thinking of, still applies. If you work out, accurately, the energy and work situation at all times you get the Energy being conserved. At the moment, you seem to be looking for something that's not there.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Work-Energy Theorem for Moving Block and Spring System?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
High School How does an object gain potential energy?
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
High School Conceptually understanding change in potential energy with 0 net work
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad System, potential energy, and nonconservative forces
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad What is the zero point for Potential Energy and how to find it from integral limits?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Solving the Block-on-Spring Problem Using Forces
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
Graduate Conservative forces, Nonconservative forces and Potential Energy
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Undergrad Seemingly a contradiction of conservation of energy?
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
High School Work and energy: conceptual doubt
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad How to interpret this definition of potential energy?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K