- #1

- 86

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Green Zach
- Start date

- #1

- 86

- 0

- #2

- 1,111

- 6

-The force of gravity IS NOT mgh this is the (approximate) GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL ENERGY

-N = newton's is a unit of force, not energy.

-In a conservative system the work (i.e. energy) is independent of path so the question "The total energy the mass felt" is kinda a nebulous concept. If after a billion crests the mass is right back where it started (with zero velocity) then the net WORK was zero regardless of how many crests went by.

- #3

- 86

- 0

-The force of gravity IS NOT mgh this is the (approximate) GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL ENERGY

-N = newton's is a unit of force, not energy.

-In a conservative system the work (i.e. energy) is independent of path so the question "The total energy the mass felt" is kinda a nebulous concept. If after a billion crests the mass is right back where it started (with zero velocity) then the net WORK was zero regardless of how many crests went by.

well i know that... bust say you could store the work so it wasn't lost by the canceling built into the wave. i.e. regardless of the vertical motion of the mass be it up or down, the work is stored. By the way sorry im a high school student equipped with grade 11 and half of grade 12 physics so please bear with me :P

- #4

- 1,111

- 6

You can't "store the work". That would violate the conservation of energy.

- #5

- 86

- 0

You can't "store the work". That would violate the conservation of energy.

what if i built a machine that could add both the up and down motion of a mass on a wave together? This isn't just hocus pocus and theories i have actually built it and it does exactly what i mentioned... even if the waves were just the ones in my bathtub lol but i have proved the concept and now i want to calculate the energy it can derive from a water wave (in theory seeing as im not an idiot and know that water waves are not like sine waves at all... usually compound waves)

- #6

- 86

- 0

- #7

- 5,607

- 40

Green: I did not follow your post either...

"So here's my idea so tell me if its correct. We know that Fg = m x g x delta"h". We know that the hight traveled by the object on the wave is going to be 2 x the amplitude of the wave..."

Can you explain in words what you are thinking here....

the "g"s drop out and F = m x delta h makes no sense to me...

how can height be twice the amplitude of the wave? This is not true for a single sinusoidal cycle....did you mean distance up then back down? when returned to sea level all potential energy returns to zero........

however, you may gain some insights and references here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_waves

In particular, note the section SCIENCE OF WAVES....

I'd suggest you search online as waves have been modeled extensively for many years.

I've boated all my life and I can verify one thing: the power in waves is quite unbelievable.

"So here's my idea so tell me if its correct. We know that Fg = m x g x delta"h". We know that the hight traveled by the object on the wave is going to be 2 x the amplitude of the wave..."

Can you explain in words what you are thinking here....

the "g"s drop out and F = m x delta h makes no sense to me...

how can height be twice the amplitude of the wave? This is not true for a single sinusoidal cycle....did you mean distance up then back down? when returned to sea level all potential energy returns to zero........

however, you may gain some insights and references here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_waves

In particular, note the section SCIENCE OF WAVES....

I'd suggest you search online as waves have been modeled extensively for many years.

I've boated all my life and I can verify one thing: the power in waves is quite unbelievable.

Last edited:

- #8

- 4,662

- 6

- #9

- 86

- 0

my machine uses both the upward force of the wave and the downward force of gravity after the wave and combines the two in one unidirectional motion. The idea is to get as much energy from the wave as possible.

Last edited:

- #10

- 86

- 0

Green: I did not follow your post either...

"So here's my idea so tell me if its correct. We know that Fg = m x g x delta"h". We know that the hight traveled by the object on the wave is going to be 2 x the amplitude of the wave..."

Can you explain in words what you are thinking here....

the "g"s drop out and F = m x delta h makes no sense to me...

how can height be twice the amplitude of the wave? This is not true for a single sinusoidal cycle....did you mean distance up then back down? when returned to sea level all potential energy returns to zero........

however, you may gain some insights and references here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_waves

In particular, note the section SCIENCE OF WAVES....

I'd suggest you search online as waves have been modeled extensively for many years.

I've boated all my life and I can verify one thing: the power in waves is quite unbelievable.

The rate of change of the wave goes from + to - or vise versa in the middle of the wave. The amplitude is the distance from the middle of the wave in both the up and down direction so the max displacement of an object on a sine wave is gonna be 2 x the amplitude i.e. it goes from zero to the peak which is the amplitude's hight from zero then back to zero which is the amplitude in the other direction then it goes back to zero so the total energy in that cycle is going to be related to the total height traveled by the object BUT lets say every 1/4 of the cycle represents an energy interval. The object goes up the amplitude, down the amplitude, down the amplitude, the up the amplitude so i can say the total vertical distance traveled is 2 x the amplitude twice in every cycle.... seems to make sense. The object is still in motion after reaching the zero point... the force stored in it's rate of change reduces but doesn't just hit zero...

- #11

- 86

- 0

oh and i meant to say that the max potential energy was at the peak and trough

Share: