Zero Acceleration in Running and in a Car

AI Thread Summary
Running and driving at constant velocity both consume energy through different mechanisms. In running, energy is expended primarily through muscle contractions and overcoming air resistance, with legs acting like springs to store and release energy. For cars, energy consumption arises from overcoming fluid friction, engine inefficiencies, and other mechanical frictions, even when moving at a constant speed. A tailwind can improve fuel efficiency, but it is often not strong enough to significantly reduce overall wind resistance. Both activities illustrate the complex interplay of forces and energy consumption in motion.
gamz95
Messages
23
Reaction score
1
1) While running with a constant velocity ; how do we consume energy? : Only due to vertical movement of our bodies, right?

2) When driving a car in a constant velocity; how this car could consume energy? It does not move upright-downright (in a very straight road).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1) If you ignore all of the bodily operations that make your body work, you are consuming energy by muscle contractions. You consume energy by horizontal movement too, you have to push on the Earth in the opposite direction as your motion. As a result of Newtons 3rd law, the Earth pushes you forward.

2) Whenever a car is moving it has to overcome fluid friction (wind resistance).

I think you are thinking of the work-potential energy concept. Where you only do work in vertical motion by changing your potential energy.
 
  • Like
Likes gamz95
Thank you very much for your reply 462.

1) Do I push myself into the earth; or the Earth pushes me??

2) I understand. There wouldn't be a case that wind is in the direction of a car, right; so that car's velocity increases?
 
  • Like
Likes anorlunda
gamz95 said:
1) Do I push myself into the earth; or the Earth pushes me??

Both. There is a force pair between yourself and the Earth. However hard you press down on the Earth, the Earth pushes up against you.

gamz95 said:
2) I understand. There wouldn't be a case that wind is in the direction of a car, right; so that car's velocity increases?

A tailwind would certainly help the car's fuel efficiency, but there's still other sources of friction that will rob the car of energy, such as in the engine, axles, etc. And unless you're going very slow it is very, very unlikely that the tailwind is as fast as the car, so you'll usually still be encountering wind resistance.
 
  • Like
Likes gamz95
Thank you very much people. Thank you!
 
There are lots of reasons humans consume energy when running. Even air resistance has an effect. It's why records only count if the wind is below a certain speed.

When running your legs behave a bit like springs that store and release energy - however the process isn't very efficient. When disabled athletes started using carbon fibre running blades there was some concern that the blades would be more efficient and make running easier/faster that it is for able bodied athletes. More on that here.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanics_of_Oscar_Pistorius'_running_blades

In addition to air resistance, cars have lots of moving parts that rub against each other loosing energy to friction. For example pistons in the engine, gears in the transmission etc. Energy is also required to accelerate the mass of the car. That energy is usually lost as heat in the brakes when slowing down.
 
  • Like
Likes gamz95
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...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
33
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
868
Replies
26
Views
7K
Back
Top