What's wrong with my definition of work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WindScars
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Work
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion regarding the definition of work in a physics problem involving a block on a ramp. The key point is that the total work done on the block is equal to the change in kinetic energy, which does not account for the potential energy change due to lifting the block. The Work-Kinetic Energy theorem states that net work includes all forces acting on the object, including gravity, but the question specifically asked for the work done by forces excluding gravitational effects. It is clarified that while the block stops, the energy required to lift it is represented differently, leading to the misconception. Ultimately, the definition of work is not incorrect, but the interpretation of the question is crucial for understanding the energy involved.
WindScars
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Please look this configuration:
2dceljk.png


The image explains itself. It's a block an a ramp at A with an initial velocity v0, kinetic coefficient of friction u, there's gravity and an extra unknown force, F, acting parallel to the ramp. The block travels a distance of d and stops at B. The question asked the total work done by all the forces on the block.

The answer is equal to "minus" the kinetic energy of the block (because the block stopped). But stopping the block wasn't the only thing that changed. It was lifted! If my definition of work were right, the energy required to lift it from A to B would have to be included on the total work done on it, but just the kinetic is. What is wrong?

Note: I didn't post this on the homework section because it's not my homework, it's an example I used to ask why energy required to lift the block doesn't count when calculing the total work done by the forces. Fell free to move the topic if it belongs there, though.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm still a bit sleepy now, so I may be wrong.
Perhaps the problem is in the question: The question asked the total work done by all the forces on the block.

Considering an energetic approach,
K_{beginning}+U_{beginning}+W_{F}=K_{end}+U_{end}+W_{friction} where W is work.
If you want to know the work of all the forces, then you must include in W all the works:
W=W_{F}-W_{friction}+W_{gravitational}, where W_{gravitational}=U_{beginning}-U_{end}
then you have
W=K_{end}-K_{beginning}=-K_{beginning}

Your definition of work wasn't wrong (though you had to take in account also the work done by the friction force), it was only that the question asked something different.
 
WindScars said:
The answer is equal to "minus" the kinetic energy of the block (because the block stopped). But stopping the block wasn't the only thing that changed. It was lifted! If my definition of work were right, the energy required to lift it from A to B would have to be included on the total work done on it, but just the kinetic is. What is wrong?
To amplify what DiracRules explained, it depends on how you choose to represent gravity.

The Work-KE theorem states that the net work done on an object due to all forces (including gravity) equals the change in KE. This is what the question is looking for.

But it's common to represent the effect of gravity as a potential energy term, in which case the net work done on an object due to all forces except gravity equals the change in KE + PE. This is what you are thinking of.
 
Doc Al said:
To amplify what DiracRules explained, it depends on how you choose to represent gravity.

The Work-KE theorem states that the net work done on an object due to all forces (including gravity) equals the change in KE. This is what the question is looking for.
TO amplify what both DiracRules and Doc al explained, suppose the block is not on a ramp. It is instead on a rough but horizontal floor. Your goal is to push the block across the floor. You are doing work on the block. So is the floor, but the work done by the floor is negative. The total work done on the block: Zero, assuming it starts and ends at rest. You don't need to know the magnitudes of the force exerted by the pusher and that exerted by the floor.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top