Understanding Conservation of Energy in a Block on a Rough Surface System

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the conservation of energy in a system involving a block on a rough surface. It explains that the work done by friction is negative, as it opposes the block's motion, leading to a decrease in kinetic energy. The relationship between initial and final kinetic energy is clarified with the equation K = k + W, where W is negative due to energy dissipation. The confusion arises from misinterpreting the signs in the algebraic representation of work and energy changes. Ultimately, the final kinetic energy is less than the initial due to the work done against friction.
Malabeh
So negatives always get me, no matter what and I'm having a hard time understanding the conservation of energy. Anywho, I'll continue. In a system, oh let's say a block on a rough surface with some intitial v and kinetic energy K at point A. After it gets to B, friction has done W amount of work on the block and now it has velocity ϑ and kinetic energy k. Consequently, K=k+W, so work by friction would be W=K-k, but then that means, algebraically, W is positive if the block is moving to the right. Friction always works against an object's velocity so the work is actually -W. Why doesn't the algebra show this? What am I missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The energy dissipated by work is defined as E_f-E_i = W and it's clearly negative. You are simply writing it in the other way. It should be k-K=W and so k = K+W. This just means that the final kinetic energy is smaller than the initial one (remember that W<0) because of dissipation.
 
Einj said:
The energy dissipated by work is defined as E_f-E_i = W and it's clearly negative. You are simply writing it in the other way. It should be k-K=W and so k = K+W. This just means that the final kinetic energy is smaller than the initial one (remember that W<0) because of dissipation.
Well that makes sense. I was just reading it wrong. Thank you!
 
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