Understanding Work and Kinetic Energy: Examples and Calculations Explained

AI Thread Summary
Work is defined as the energy transferred when a force is applied over a distance, and it is calculated as W = F * s. In scenarios where an object moves at a constant velocity, like James jogging, the net force is zero, resulting in no work done (W = 0) despite the presence of kinetic energy. Kinetic energy (KE) is calculated using the formula KE = 0.5 * m * v^2, which shows that while James has kinetic energy of 242J, he does not gain or lose energy while maintaining constant speed. If he were to start from rest and accelerate, work would be done, and the energy balance would change. Understanding these principles clarifies the relationship between work and kinetic energy in different scenarios.
Joseph812
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am confused of how Work basically equals to Kinetic Energy...I will give an example just as way to help you help me get an idea about how it works...the example I thought of is... '' James (100 kg) jogs on a straight road at a constant velocity of 2.2 m/s for 600 seconds, how much energy does Jame consume?''...How I thought of it is...since he has constant velocity..his Force is 0 (F= ma), therefore work done is 0 (W= Fs), but KE=0.5mv^2...so his kinetic energy is 242J.

What did I do wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If James is sitting on a rolling chair without any friction and air resistance, moving at a constant velocity of 2.2 m/s, then there is indeed no work done and the energy difference equals zero. His kinetic energy is positive (242J I assume), but he started already moving and ends moving in your example at a constant speed, so there is no energy gained and no energy lost, because no work is done.

If you let him start at zero speed, you have to calculated the acceleration (a > 0) and the energy balance is a different one.
 
Oh, I get it now...thank you very much :)
 

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

B About verification on Kinetic energy and work
Replies
16
Views
2K
I Why does the main muscle use the most energy in body movements?
Replies
24
Views
2K
B Colliding balls: Conservation of momentum and changes in kinetic energy?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Internal forces converting kinetic into potential energy (vice versa)
Replies
10
Views
2K
Understanding the work-kinetic energy theorem
Replies
7
Views
2K
I Work-Energy Theorem for Moving Block and Spring System?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Work-Energy Theorem: Is Lifting a Rigid Body Really 0 Work?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Interpretation of kinetic energy
Replies
3
Views
2K
A question about potential energy and work
Replies
5
Views
1K
B The physics of flywheel launchers (like tennis ball shooters)
2
Replies
60
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top