Understanding Work and Energy Transfer: The Relationship and Implications

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter urtalkinstupid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Work
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between work and energy transfer, emphasizing that work is defined as the transfer of energy through the application of force over a distance, expressed mathematically as W = Fd cos(θ). Scenarios illustrate that while energy is expended (e.g., a man pushing an object), no work is done if the object does not move, leading to a total work output of 0 Joules. The conversation also explores gravitational forces in the Earth-moon system, concluding that while forces exist, they do not equate to work being done in the traditional sense, challenging conventional interpretations of energy conservation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts such as force, work, and energy.
  • Familiarity with the work equation: W = Fd cos(θ).
  • Knowledge of gravitational force calculations, including Newton's law of universal gravitation.
  • Basic understanding of energy conservation principles in physics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of gravitational forces on orbital mechanics.
  • Study the differences between input energy and output work in physical systems.
  • Explore advanced topics in thermodynamics related to energy transfer and heat generation.
  • Learn about the conservation of energy in closed systems and its applications in real-world scenarios.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators explaining work-energy principles, and anyone interested in the complexities of energy transfer in mechanical systems.

  • #211
Type of cliff would include it's height from the ground (or core). I've already said that you would have to state the point at which y-position is 0.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #212
"UrTalk" was saying that ON the cliff, the ball has no potential energy because it's still touching the ground, OFF the cliff it does have potential energy because it has a distance to reach ground

Tom is saying that you're always measuring potential energy to the bottom of the cliff, even if the ball is sitting on the GROUND at the Edge of said cliff.

just clearing up where people are arguing from (which really isn't part of an argument in the first place, i guess we need to re-focus)
 
  • #213
No, that is not what I was saying. Try again.
 
  • #214
urtalkinstupid said:
Type of cliff would include it's height from the ground (or core).

And as I keep telling you, the height from the ground is all you need to know. You do not need to know anything about the cliff at all. If you took a picture of the bowling ball with a long measuring stick in the background and told me the mass of the ball, and edited out the cliff, I could still tell you what the GPE is with the ground as the datum.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that that the cliff is purely incidental to the setup.

I've already said that you would have to state the point at which y-position is 0.

You're sending mixed signals then, because the "real definition of PE" by itself does not include the datum.
 
  • #215
urtalkinstupid said:
No, that is not what I was saying. Try again.

That's exactly what you were saying.
 
  • #216
So, is it the type of cliff that is 385m above ground or the type that is 386.3m above the ground?

I simply said that to mess with you people...wow, you people are freaking serious.
 
  • #217
urtalkinstupid said:
I simply said that to mess with you people...wow, you people are freaking serious.
Okay, that's enough for me. Wave bye-bye.

- Warren
 
  • #218
urtalkinstupid said:
I simply said that to mess with you people...wow, you people are freaking serious.

No, you said it because you had a serious misconception about gravitational potential energy, which is why I corrected you. But rather than admit the error and thank me (as I would do in the extremely unlikely event that the shoe is ever on the other foot), you backpeddaled like a know-it-all brat who couldn't possibly make a mistake.
 
  • #219
urtalkinstupid said:
I simply said that to mess with you people...wow, you people are freaking serious.
Interesting catch-22 you put yourself in there: on the one hand you could admit being wrong, learn something and gain our respect, on the other hand you could admit being a troll and a menace to this forum. Interesting choice you made. But it does simplify our job somewhat...
 
  • #220
i knew they were trolls from day one, but nooooo. no one listens to me...
 

Similar threads

High School Conceptually understanding change in potential energy with 0 net work
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
High School Curious about the work - energy theorem
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
High School Curious about Work and Energy Consumption
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
High School About verification on Kinetic energy and work
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Undergrad Why does the main muscle use the most energy in body movements?
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
High School Work Done By Conservative Forces
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School What is the Definition of the Joule and How Does it Relate to Energy?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Undergrad Work Done/Energy Transferred in One Dimensional Collision
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School How does an object gain potential energy?
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
Undergrad Relationship between Concentration of a Force and Energy Density
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K