Is Work Done at Constant Speed When Kinetic Energy is Involved?

AI Thread Summary
Work is done when a force is exerted through a distance, even if an object moves at constant speed, as this indicates that other forces are balancing out to create a net force of zero. The discussion highlights that maintaining constant speed, such as dragging a plow, still requires energy to overcome friction and other resistive forces. Kinetic energy increases with speed, and work is necessary to change this energy, similar to how lifting a weight increases its potential energy. Friction, while not a fundamental force, converts mechanical energy into heat, indicating that it can also do work in this context. Overall, the conversation clarifies that work is not solely dependent on acceleration but also on the forces acting on an object.
Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5
I am reading this article on the concept of work,http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/lm/ch13/ch13.html#fig:tractor-pulling-plow , but the paragraph immediately below the section "Calculating work as force multiplied by distance" appears to implicitly say that some sort of work is being done, even though in the supposed situation they are assuming that speed is constant, which would mean there is no force. Could someone try to explain what exactly the paragraph is saying? Especially what they mean by "kinetic energy of the weight"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Bashyboy said:
I am reading this article on the concept of work,http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/lm/ch13/ch13.html#fig:tractor-pulling-plow , but the paragraph immediately below the section "Calculating work as force multiplied by distance" appears to implicitly say that some sort of work is being done, even though in the supposed situation they are assuming that speed is constant, which would mean there is no force. Could someone try to explain what exactly the paragraph is saying? Especially what they mean by "kinetic energy of the weight"?
Since the tractor exerts a force through a distance, work is done. If the object being pulled is moving at constant speed, it just means that other forces are acting so that the net force is zero. But the tractor is still doing work. Depending on the details, that work could go into increasing PE or KE, or breaking up the soil.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Suppose you drag a plow thru the ground at constant speed. Are you doing any work??

Yes. constant speed does not mean no work is being done. It takes effort [work] to drag a plow at constant speed. That's why a car burns gas going down the highway at a constant speed...friction of air floq and tires, for example, must be overcome even at constant speed.

When you increase the speed of a mass, you also increase it's kinetic energy...an energy of motion. This is measured by 1/2mv2 and it takes work to increase such kinetic energy...analogous to the work it takes to lift a weight increasing it's potential energy. When lifting a weight it is often assumed the weight is not accelerated, that is, it's velocity is constant, so that only potential energy is changed; if you rapidly lift a weight increasing its speed, and hence it's kinetic energy, such a weight is capable of doing more work because you have put more work into it. That's why, for example, wood chippers have a heavy flywheel so when something thick and solid has to be cut, the energy in the flywheel can briefly do the work so the engine doesn't slow down too much...any maybe stall.
 
Doc Al said:
Since the tractor exerts a force through a distance, work is done. If the object being pulled is moving at constant speed, it just means that other forces are acting so that the net force is zero. But the tractor is still doing work. Depending on the details, that work could go into increasing PE or KE, or breaking up the soil.

Oh, okay, so the NET FORCE is zero, but the definition of work doesn't deal with the the forces summed together (net force), it deals with each individual force acting on an object. So, for instance, if we had a tractor pulling a trailer at a constant velocity, work would be done by friction acting against the tires and the hitch pulling on the trailer.

Now, I am having a little troubling seeing how friction can do work, and how work can it accumulate over a distance. Is it because at the moment of contact, between some object and the ground, once the force is applied the two surfaces are moving relative to one another?
 
I'm unclear what you are asking. Getting back to the tractor: If it exerts a force as it moves through a distance then it does work. Regardless of whether it's moving at constant speed or accelerating.
 
Bashyboy said:
Now, I am having a little troubling seeing how friction can do work

Friction typically converts one type of energy (mechanical) to another (heat).

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

Friction is not a fundamental force but occurs because of the electromagnetic forces between charged particles which constitute the surfaces in contact. Because of the complexity of these interactions, friction cannot be calculated from first principles, but instead must be found empirically.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top