Understanding Energy and Work Done

AI Thread Summary
Energy is defined as the capacity to do work, and when a rock falls, its energy can be transferred upon impact, potentially producing heat and sound. In a perfectly inelastic collision, momentum is conserved while kinetic energy is not, leading to energy dissipation as heat and sound. The discussion also highlights that work done against friction requires movement; if the pillar does not move, no work is done against friction. Calculating the effect of acceleration on useful work involves applying Newton's second law and adjusting for the necessary work to achieve optimal results. Overall, understanding energy transfer and work done is crucial in analyzing physical interactions.
sgstudent
Messages
726
Reaction score
3
Energy is the capacity to do work. So if I have energy I can do work. But if a rock has 100J from falling down a building to push a pillar into the ground, it might not have enough energy to have any work done to push it in. So what happens to that 100Js? Ignoring air resistance. Since energy can neither be destroyed or created so I'm unsure where energy that isn't used has gone. I'm theorizing that heat and sound is produced from the impact and that's the energy dissipated but I'm not completely sure about it. I'm unsure if the friction of the pillar constitutes into this. But then again work done against friction also requires a distance which is 0 when the pillar doesn't move. Thanks for the help! :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
yup, you are right. upon impact(assume rock+pillar stick together ie. perfectly inelastic collision, momentum conserved, kinetic energy not conserved, lost as heat and sound). also, work done against friction between the sides of the pillar against the ground(as your pillar gains momentum and hence velocity).
 
how would you calculate the effect of acceleration on the precentage of useful work done?
 
You would use Newton's second law. The same rock from before is traveling down with a magnitude and direction of mass * acceleration.
sumF=ma,
W=FdcosT
W=dmacosT, substituting.
for some arbitrary acceleration, the work done is given by the equation.. If you want to use percentages, divide this number by the necessary work to achieve an optimal result, and multiply by 100. This method will however lead to some level of uncertainty constrained by the assumption that some optimal amount of work is the minimum amount of work needed in a system.
 
jester1989 said:
yup, you are right. upon impact(assume rock+pillar stick together ie. perfectly inelastic collision, momentum conserved, kinetic energy not conserved, lost as heat and sound). also, work done against friction between the sides of the pillar against the ground(as your pillar gains momentum and hence velocity).
But what if the pillar doesn't move. Then won't there be zero work done again friction?
 
未命名.GIF
 
Last edited:
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