Why do we add Kinetic and Potential energy?

AI Thread Summary
Kinetic and potential energy are both scalar quantities, allowing for their straightforward addition to determine total energy. This combined value is referred to as "mechanical energy." Total energy encompasses all forms of energy, including those affected by dissipative forces that do not conserve mechanical energy. Potential energy can vary in sign, being positive or negative based on changes in distance. Thus, the addition of kinetic and potential energy remains a scalar operation.
akashpandey
Messages
90
Reaction score
4
As we know Energy is a scalar quantity.
So when we add kinetic and potential energy to get Total energy.
So addicting these two energy (kinetic and potential) comes under Scalar addition ?
I just wanted to confirm it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes.
 
Also, note that the scalar sum of kinetic and potential energy is called "mechanical energy." "Total energy" is the sum of all energies and includes energy transformations brought about by dissipative forces that do not conserve mechanical energy.
 
akashpandey said:
Summary:: Adding Kinetic and Potential energy is Scalar addition.

As we know Energy is a scalar quantity.
Having a sign doesn't prevent a scalar from being a scalar. Potential energy can be positive or negative, depending on whether it increases or decreases as the distance changes.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Can energy be decomposed?
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Let a standing wave of length L go, get traveling wave of length 2L?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Kinetic energy and potential energy look very dissimilar
Replies
10
Views
2K
I How to interpret this definition of potential energy?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Escape Velocity Question: Why is the final kinetic energy = 0?
Replies
21
Views
5K
I Why is momentum considered a vector and kinetic energy a scalar?
Replies
15
Views
3K
I Change of coordinates in a potential energy field
Replies
2
Views
1K
Is the rotational KE of a rigid body considered as internal energy?
Replies
30
Views
3K
Internal forces converting kinetic into potential energy (vice versa)
Replies
10
Views
2K
"External" potential energies strike back
Replies
6
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top