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

AI Thread 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
218
Reaction score
41
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.
 
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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...
Back
Top