Partition between kinetic and potential energy?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between kinetic and potential energy in a freely vibrating body, with kinetic energy expressed as Ekin=(1-1/10sin(ωt))cos2(ωt). The potential energy is identified as elastic energy, and in cases involving gravity, gravitational potential must also be considered, typically acting as a damping force. The total energy of the system remains constant, and the potential energy can be calculated as Epot=Etot-Ekin, where Etot can be chosen arbitrarily. This choice allows for flexibility in defining potential energy, similar to selecting a zero point for height measurements. Ultimately, the potential energy is minimized when kinetic energy reaches its maximum.
M_1
Messages
30
Reaction score
1
Hi,

If I have a body which is freely vibrating with kinetic energy given by, say,
Ekin=(1-1/10sin(ωt))cos2(ωt)

what can be said about the potential energy? Of course the total energy should be constant but how big is it, in other words what is the potential energy?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The potential energy of the vibrating body is its elastic energy. If the body is in a gravity well a complete analysis would include the gravitational potential, but this would appear as a damping force on the vibrations in most cases.

A quantitative approach would be to find the maximum value for the kinetic energy; this will occur when the potential energy is minimized. This would be the total energy of the system.
 
M_1 said:
Hi,

If I have a body which is freely vibrating with kinetic energy given by, say,
Ekin=(1-1/10sin(ωt))cos2(ωt)

what can be said about the potential energy? Of course the total energy should be constant but how big is it, in other words what is the potential energy?

Asking what the potential energy is is like asking how high something is: The answer depends on the arbitrary choice of a zero point, so we might say that an object is 2 meters off the floor, or 8 meters above ground level, or 123 meters above sea level, and they'd all be just as right.

Here we have ##E_{tot}=E_{kin}+E_{pot}##, so the potential energy is ##E_{pot}=E_{tot}-E_{kin}##, and we are free to choose any value for E_{tot} that we want, as long as we're consistent. It's often convenient to choose ##E_{tot}## so that ##E_{pot}## is zero when ##E_{kin}## is at a maximum.
 
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