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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the conservation of energy in a system involving a block on a rough surface. Initially, the block has kinetic energy K at point A, and after moving to point B, friction does work W on the block, resulting in a new kinetic energy k. The relationship is established as W = K - k, indicating that work done by friction is negative (W < 0), which aligns with the principle that friction opposes motion and dissipates energy. The confusion arises from misinterpreting the algebraic representation of energy changes due to friction.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of kinetic energy and its formula
  • Basic knowledge of work-energy principles
  • Familiarity with the concept of friction and its effects on motion
  • Ability to manipulate algebraic equations related to energy
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the work-energy theorem in detail
  • Explore examples of energy dissipation due to friction
  • Learn about the implications of negative work in physical systems
  • Investigate different types of surfaces and their friction coefficients
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the principles of energy conservation and the effects of friction in mechanical systems.

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 [itex]E_f-E_i = W[/itex] 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 [itex]E_f-E_i = W[/itex] 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!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
6K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K