Reconciling Potential Energy and Work: Understanding the Relationship

AI Thread Summary
Potential energy is defined as the work done by conservative forces, such as gravity, and is transformed into kinetic energy when an object falls, maintaining the total energy. When lifting an object, the work done by the hand increases potential energy, while gravity does negative work, leading to confusion about energy increase. The relationship between work and potential energy is complex, as potential energy is included in work calculations but also considered part of the total energy in conservation equations. Misunderstandings arise when trying to treat potential energy as both energy and a force simultaneously. Clarifying these definitions is crucial for understanding energy dynamics in physics.
Opus_723
Messages
175
Reaction score
3
If you are holding an object off the ground and let it go, we say that it's potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy as it falls, but the total amount of energy stays the same. However, the gravitational force is doing work on the object, which seems like it would increase the amount of energy in the object.

Similarly, when we lift a stationary object up, we say that it's potential energy increases. Yet two forces were acting on the object as we lifted it. The force from our hand did positive work, but the gravitational force did an equal amount of negative work. So how does the energy increase?

Basically, I've suddenly realized that I don't really understand the definitions of work and potential energy.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Opus_723! :smile:

potential energy is defined as (minus) the work done by a conservative force (such as gravity)
Opus_723 said:
If you are holding an object off the ground and let it go, we say that it's potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy as it falls, but the total amount of energy stays the same. However, the gravitational force is doing work on the object, which seems like it would increase the amount of energy in the object.

from the PF library …
Is potential energy energy?

There is confusion over whether "energy" includes "potential energy".

On the one hand, in the work-energy equation, potential energy is part of the work done.

On the other hand, in the conservation-of-energy equation (and conservation of course only applies to conservative forces), potential energy is part of the energy.​

you're double-accounting … if you want to treat mgh as energy, then you can't treat gravity as a force :wink:
 
Okay. I was thinking it was something like that, where I was just fuzzy on how it's defined. Thanks for the clarification.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Can energy be decomposed?
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Why does the main muscle use the most energy in body movements?
Replies
24
Views
2K
I How to interpret this definition of potential energy?
Replies
10
Views
2K
B About verification on Kinetic energy and work
Replies
16
Views
2K
Conservative forces, Nonconservative forces and Potential Energy
Replies
9
Views
3K
I Work-Energy Theorem for Moving Block and Spring System?
Replies
4
Views
2K
How does gravitational potential energy work?
Replies
27
Views
11K
Gravitational potential energy -- Why is it always negative?
Replies
10
Views
3K
Understanding the work-kinetic energy theorem
Replies
7
Views
2K
Question About Potential Energy
Replies
3
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top