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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter lewis198
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Impossible
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the physics of carrying a load and the concept of work done in relation to stationary objects. Participants explore why a load remains at the same height when carried, despite the physical effort exerted by the person carrying it.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why a load carried above the head remains at the same height despite the work done by the arms and legs.
  • Another participant asserts that the arms and legs do no work in the vertical direction, leading to the conclusion that the work done on the load is zero, hence it does not move vertically.
  • A different participant challenges this by stating that if the load is stationary, the person must oppose its weight, suggesting that energy is expended even when not moving.
  • Some participants express confusion about the distinction between human effort and mechanical work, using examples like a fridge magnet and a person clinging to a rock face to illustrate their points.
  • One participant emphasizes that anthropomorphizing objects can lead to misunderstandings about work in physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; there are multiple competing views regarding the nature of work and energy expenditure in the context of carrying a load and the distinction between human effort and mechanical work.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions of work and energy in physics, particularly in relation to stationary objects and the human body's energy expenditure.

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 [tex]W = \int_{x1}^{x2} F \cdot dx[/tex] , 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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
18K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K