The Physics of Carrying a Load: Why Does the Height Remain the Same?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the physics of carrying a load and why the height of the load remains constant despite the exertion of energy. It explains that while a person expends energy to maintain a load, this does not equate to mechanical work, as no vertical movement occurs. The conversation highlights the distinction between human effort and the concept of work in physics, emphasizing that stationary objects, like a table or a magnet, do not perform work despite the energy required to maintain their position. The confusion arises from anthropomorphizing physical concepts, leading to misconceptions about energy expenditure. Ultimately, the principles of physics clarify that work is defined by movement, not effort.
lewis198
Messages
95
Reaction score
0
Here is an interesting question I thought about:

If a man carries a load x/(g*d) above his head, and his arms do work x, and his legs now have the added work x, over d meters, why does the load remain at the same height?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Simply put, the arms and legs do no actual work in the vertical direction and since W = \int_{x1}^{x2} F \cdot dx , the work done by or to the load is 0 and thus won't move in height.
 
But if the load is to remain stationary wouldn't they have to oppose the weight? Isn't energy expended when the man is stationary? You see this is what I don't get in physics, some basic things don't match up. For example, a 0.5 kg fridge magnet stuck on a fridge for years is supposed to do no work but if we were to cling to a rock face for years and years we would expend energy. How is that explained?
 
lewis198 said:
But if the load is to remain stationary wouldn't they have to oppose the weight? Isn't energy expended when the man is stationary?

You expend energy all the time no matter what you do, just to keep your body running, etc. But in terms of purely mechanical work, no work is being done. You're confusing human effort with work. A table has no problem holding something up either. Do you think tables are performing work?

You see this is what I don't get in physics, some basic things don't match up. For example, a 0.5 kg fridge magnet stuck on a fridge for years is supposed to do no work but if we were to cling to a rock face for years and years we would expend energy. How is that explained?

Same answer: Stop anthropomorphizing.
 
lewis198 said:
But if the load is to remain stationary wouldn't they have to oppose the weight? Isn't energy expended when the man is stationary? You see this is what I don't get in physics, some basic things don't match up. For example, a 0.5 kg fridge magnet stuck on a fridge for years is supposed to do no work but if we were to cling to a rock face for years and years we would expend energy. How is that explained?
This question comes up a lot. Here's one thread that might help you sort it out: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=119026
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top