Quick question on work and energy

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the physics of work and energy in relation to fragile objects experiencing deceleration, particularly in scenarios involving magical or hypothetical mechanisms that absorb kinetic energy. Participants explore whether an object can remain unharmed if all kinetic energy is absorbed without work being done on it, emphasizing that stress, rather than energy alone, causes damage. Concepts such as airbags and fluid-filled capsules are proposed as potential protective measures, highlighting the importance of deceleration distance to minimize g-forces on the body. The conversation also touches on the practical applications of these ideas, including the use of liquid environments to mitigate impact forces. Ultimately, the discussion underscores the complexities of energy transfer and the mechanics of impact protection.
  • #31
ElementsnStuff said:
If I'm reading this thread right, so far there are established methods to limit the effects of deceleration, stress, and kinetic energy on a body. Therefore, all that seems to be left are shock waves...
That's a bit backwards. The method limits the stresses themselves (not the effects of stresses) during high acceleration (but low jerk). Shock waves (due to high jerk) are one way to dissipate the kinetic energy of the object. The method is usually to dissipate the kinetic energy by destroying some softer crumple zone, to protect the important parts in a harder shell.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Back to the question of deceleration: My goal here is to make the vertical distance of deceleration as small as possible without harming the body. To that end, would it be possible to do the following:

-Attach a bunch of tiny, hollow cylindrical 'wheels' to the bottom of the system. Through these are connected a bunch of axial rods which are rigidly attached to the system, and the whole setup is encased in a semi-viscous fluid. The rods are, through some means, made to stay on the side of the tube until the moment of impact. Upon impact, the rods begin rapidly rotating around the inside of the tubes, converting the deceleration into rotational force and slowing down via means of the viscous fluid until they are once again at rest.

Is this a viable means of safely removing deceleration from a system? I'm mainly just trying to convert that idea about the ski slopes from earlier into something mechanical. If this isn't a good idea, does anyone have a better one?
 
  • #33
ElementsnStuff said:
I thought of this recently, and want to know if there's something I'm missing.

So, say a very fragile object decelerates to a stop from a given velocity. For example, a free-falling object hitting the ground.

But, all the kinetic energy is absorbed through use of some clever mechanics (assume magic for this part).

If no energy was transmitted to the object, and (therefore) no work was done on it, would the fragile object still be harmed?
The "magic" gets that energy. If the magic is sand and falling object is ball, then energy kinetic energy turns to thermal energy of ball and sand. Work is done during the impact.
 
  • #34
ElementsnStuff said:
Back to the question of deceleration: My goal here is to make the vertical distance of deceleration as small as possible without harming the body.

First you have to determine what you mean by "harming the body" and what the body can withstand before that happens.

Once you have worked out what you mean by that you need to devise a scheme that ensures the body doesn't experience anything worse. For example it might be the case that constant deceleration gives the shortest stopping distance without harm, or some other profile might prove to be better. Then you need to design the system to achieve that.

I've no idea if your proposed system achieves your objective as neither are well specified. There is a lot of science and engineering in springs and damping systems.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K