Work relationship with energies

AI Thread Summary
Work done (W) is defined in relation to kinetic energy (T) and potential energy (U) based on specific conditions. If potential energy is zero and kinetic energy is non-zero, work equals kinetic energy; if kinetic energy is zero and potential energy is non-zero, work equals potential energy. When both energies are present, work is the sum of kinetic and potential energy. An example illustrates that lifting a 1 kg ball to 1 meter results in 10 J of potential energy, which converts to kinetic energy when dropped. The relationship between these forms of energy demonstrates the conservation of energy principle throughout the ball's motion.
Miraj Kayastha
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
In which situation is Work done (F.d) equal to Kinetic energy, Potential energy and both kinetic & potential energy at the same time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If U=0 & T#0 then W=T
If U#0 & T=0 then W=U
If U=0 & T=0 then W=0
If U#0 & T#0 then W= U+T
 
Miraj Kayastha said:
In which situation is Work done (F.d) equal to Kinetic energy, Potential energy and both kinetic & potential energy at the same time?
If you raise a ball of 1Kg to a distance 1m,from 0 height(assume g as 10m/s and constant velocity)
then work done or potential energy gained is 10J.
If you then drop it form that height,(Air resistance and all other forces except gravity is negligible)
The kinetic energy it has,just before it hits the ground is equal to potential energy it had before(or work done on it before)
##E_k=\frac{mv^2}{2}##

If we throw the ball up,at it's height peak,potential energy is maximum.At its lowes height,Kinetic energy is maximum.In the middle,kinetic energy is equal to potential energy
 
Last edited:

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Can energy be decomposed?
Replies
2
Views
1K
B About verification on Kinetic energy and work
Replies
16
Views
2K
I How can we prove the kinetic energy equation
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Hamilton’s principle maximises potential energy?
Replies
5
Views
1K
I Why does the main muscle use the most energy in body movements?
Replies
24
Views
2K
B Work done in lifting and lowering an object
Replies
34
Views
4K
B What is the need for the concepts of Work and Energy (KE)?
Replies
8
Views
1K
I Work Done/Energy Transferred in One Dimensional Collision
Replies
5
Views
2K
B The work done by two objects on each other
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
I Work-Energy Theorem for Moving Block and Spring System?
Replies
4
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top