Is Negative Work Possible with a String?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of work done by a string in a mechanical system involving a disk and gravity. Participants explore whether negative work can occur in this context and the implications of the string's role in energy conversion.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question the conditions under which negative work might occur and discuss the relationship between the string, gravitational work, and rotational kinetic energy. They also explore the implications of friction on the system's behavior.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants offering insights and clarifications regarding the mechanics involved. Some guidance has been provided about the role of the string and the nature of work done in the system, though multiple interpretations are still being explored.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing examination of assumptions related to friction and motion, particularly regarding the effects of static versus kinetic friction on the work done by the string and the disk's motion.

eurekameh
Messages
209
Reaction score
0
k392cx.png

Shouldn't there be negative work done by the string?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
eurekameh said:
Shouldn't there be negative work done by the string?
As it turns out, no.

There would be [negative] work done by the string if the disk's axle was sliding on the string, causing the system to heat up. But that's not what's happening here. Whenever and wherever the string and disk are in contact, there is no relative motion between the string and disk. Given that fact, how does W = F·s apply?
 
Thanks. That makes so much more sense. Am I right in saying that the only thing the string is doing is converting some of the work of gravity into rotational kinetic energy, and if there was no string to begin with, the disk would translate vertically at a faster speed than if the string was there to convert some of the work to rotational kinetic energy?
 
eurekameh said:
Thanks. That makes so much more sense. Am I right in saying that the only thing the string is doing is converting some of the work of gravity into rotational kinetic energy, and if there was no string to begin with, the disk would translate vertically at a faster speed than if the string was there to convert some of the work to rotational kinetic energy?
I suppose that's a valid way to look at it. :approve: The relationship of v = (0.1 m)ω in this case is due to the string, in part. And the tension on the string also contributes to the sum of linear forces acting on the disk (which explain's why the disk's linear acceleration is less than g). The string just doesn't do any work though.

A ball of radius r rolling on a hard, flat surface (ignoring air resistance) will continue rolling indefinitely. No work is being on the ball or by the ball. Yet it is the force of static friction that keeps the ball rolling, as opposed to sliding, and thus plays a role in determining the v = ωr relationship.
 
Last edited:
But if it was sliding instead, the force of kinetic friction would be doing negative work?
Also, if there was absolutely no friction at all, the ball would still be going indefinitely, but without rotation, right?
 
Right. :approve:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
707
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
945
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K