Work and power when lifting weights

AI Thread Summary
Lifting one end of a log requires less energy than lifting the entire log due to the mechanics of levers and the distribution of mass. When lifting from one end, the log acts as a second-order lever, making it easier to raise the center of mass. In contrast, lifting the log from the center involves a third-order lever, which increases the effort needed. The discussion also touches on the distinction between mechanical energy and the chemical energy expended by muscles, noting that mechanical energy remains constant in both scenarios. Understanding these principles of gravity and leverage clarifies why lifting techniques affect energy expenditure.
physicscholar
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
something i can't grasp is
why is it that when you lift one end of a log and the center of mass is raised a certain height you are using less energy than lifting the whole log with the center of mass raised to the same height
does it have to do with the amount of mass you're raising?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you talking about the mechanical energy done on the log or the chemical energy used by your muscles? The mechanical energy is equal in the two cases.

I'm also unsure of how this relates to the title of the thread - you didn't ask anything about power.
 
Hi
if i understand properly your question...i think you must understand the gravity and balancing methods..
For e.g.,
case 1. When you lift from one end->it means a 2nd order lever (load is the log or somewhere in log, fulcrum (fixed) at the other end and)..
case 2. When you lift by holding the log somewhere (not from end!)->it means a 3rd order lever (load is the log or somewhere in log, fulcrum (fixed) where you hold the log..
Obviously it will easier in 1.
Hope this helps.
 
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