When Does the Kinetic Work Energy Theorem Not Apply?

AI Thread Summary
The Kinetic Work Energy Theorem applies primarily to rigid bodies and does not hold when work results in deformation. Work is defined as the force applied over a distance, but it can also be represented in different contexts, such as pseudowork related to the center of mass of an object. The theorem is fundamentally linked to Newton's second law rather than a general statement about energy conservation. In scenarios where potential energy changes without a change in velocity, the net work is zero, as forces like gravity can perform negative work. Understanding these nuances clarifies the limitations and applications of the Kinetic Work Energy Theorem.
uestions
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
When does the Kinetic Work Energy Theorem not apply to a situation? Or better, is there a general form of the equation where work can equal the change in any energy? What is work besides a force and a distance?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
uestions said:
When does the Kinetic Work Energy Theorem not apply to a situation?

The Work-Energy Theorem only applies to rigid bodies. That is, if the work is not used to deform the object.

uestions said:
is there a general form of the equation where work can equal the change in any energy?

There's a thread here that discusses this in detail;
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/58134/how-to-understand-the-work-energy-theorem

uestions said:
What is work besides a force and a distance?

Work by definition, is what a force does on an object by displacing it. However, there are other ways of representing work if that's what you're asking.
 
Last edited:
TysonM8 said:
The Work-Energy Theorem only applies to rigid bodies. That is, if the work is not used to deform the object.
Here's something that I wrote in another thread that may clarify how the "work"-energy theorem, when thought of as an application of Newton's 2nd law, may be applied to deformable bodies.
Doc Al said:
The so-called 'work'-Energy theorem is really an application of Newton's 2nd law, not a statement about work in general. Only in the special case of a point mass (or rigid body) is that "work" term really a work (in the conservation of energy sense).

If you take a net force acting on an object (like friction) and multiply it by the displacement of the object's center of mass, you get a quantity that looks like a work term but is better called pseudowork (or "center of mass" work)--what it determines is not the real work done on the object, but the change in the KE of the center of mass of the object. This is usually called the "Work-Energy" theorem:
F_{net}\Delta x_{cm}=\Delta (\frac{1}{2}m v_{cm}^2)
Despite the name, this is really a consequence of Newton's 2nd law, not a statement of energy conservation.
 
How can work be done to an object that has a change in potential energy, but no change in velocity?
 
uestions said:
How can work be done to an object that has a change in potential energy, but no change in velocity?
If the velocity doesn't change, the work-kinetic energy theorem just says that the net work must be zero. You do work when you lift an object at constant speed, but gravity is also doing negative work.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
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