B Which Energy Law is the Key to Understanding Work and Conservation?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on identifying the most comprehensive energy conservation law among several equations. Participants agree that all equations serve to categorize energy forms and that the choice depends on the specific situation. One contributor emphasizes that understanding energy conservation is essentially a matter of bookkeeping, where it’s crucial to avoid double-counting energy sources. The third and fourth equations are highlighted as particularly significant, with one participant suggesting they are foundational to understanding energy conservation. Ultimately, clarity in categorizing energy types is deemed essential for effective application of these laws.
mark2142
Messages
228
Reaction score
42
Hi, everyone! There are a lot of work energy conservation laws and I get confused which one of them summarizes all of them. Which one I should keep with me and rest should be easy to derive on spot ?
1. ##\Delta E_{mec}=0##
2. ##\Delta E_{mec}=W_{ext}##
3.##\Delta E_{mec} + \Delta E_{ther}=W_{ext}##
4.##\Delta KE= W_{ext} +W_{c} +W_{nc}##
5.##\Delta E_{mec}=W_{nc}##

Which one?

Thank you for supporting.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mark2142 said:
Hi, everyone! There are a lot of work energy conservation laws and I get confused which one of them summarizes all of them. Which one I should keep with me and rest should be easy to derive on spot ?
1. ##\Delta E_{mec}=0##
2. ##\Delta E_{mec}=W_{ext}##
3.##\Delta E_{mec} + \Delta E_{ther}=W_{ext}##
4.##\Delta KE= W_{ext} +W_{c} +W_{nc}##
5.##\Delta E_{mec}=W_{nc}##

Which one?

Thank you for supporting.
To me, they are all fairly obvious. You have a bunch of buckets where energy can show up. You may rule some out based on the situation. You may change which classification scheme you use to split things into buckets.

But as long as your buckets include all the places that energy can come from or go to and you are not double-counting anywhere, then you can write down an equation for energy conservation.

It's just book keeping.

Edit: I find the notions of "conservative" and "non-conservative" work to be wastes of time. If you have a potential associated with a force then you can use a bucket for the potential instead of a bucket for the associated work. The classification scheme I would use is "work that I am tracking using a potential" and "work that I am tracking as plain old work".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes nasu and russ_watters
jbriggs444 said:
It's just book keeping.
OK! Thank you.
BTW I think its the 3rd/4th eqn which is the mother of all equations.
 
For fun I was trying to use energy considerations to determine the depth to which a solid object will sink in a fluid to reach equilibrium. The first approach that I tried was just to consider the change in potential energy of the block and the fluid as the block is lowered some unknown distance d into the fluid similar to what is shown in the answer to this post. Upon taking the limit as the vessel's cross sectional area approaches infinity I have an extra factor of 2 in the equilibrium...
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?
This is just to share some teaching experience. A problem about trajectory of a projectile in the atmosphere is very well known. The trajectory has a vertical asymptote. This fact is easy to obtain by using the stability theory. Consider equations of motion. Let ##\boldsymbol v=v_x\boldsymbol e_x+v_y\boldsymbol e_y## be the velocity of the projectile relative the standard Earth fixed frame ##xy## with ##y## directed upwards. The second Newton ##m\boldsymbol {\dot v}=m\boldsymbol g-\gamma...