Work-Kinetic and Work-Potential theorems relation

  • B
  • Thread starter aljan9559
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Relation
In summary, when considering the scenario of a free-falling object in a vacuum on earth, the object will be accelerating towards the earth and according to the Work-Kinetic theorem, positive work is done on the object as its kinetic energy increases. However, when applying the Work-Potential theorem with the same scenario, the work is negative as the object loses gravitational potential energy. The change in potential energy is equal to the negative of the work done by conservative forces, such as gravity, and not the work done by a non-conservative force such as the person lifting the object. This highlights the difference between the two theorems and their application in the scenario.
  • #1
aljan9559
2
1
TL;DR Summary
My question is about the relation between the Work-Kinetic (W = change in PE) and Work-Potential theorem (W = change in KE). Does the change in KE and change in PE in the same scenario result in the same work value?
In a scenario of a free-falling object in a vacuum on earth, the object will be acceleration towards the earth. According to the theorem of Work-Kinetic and Work-Potential:

* Since the object is accelerating towards the earth, we know that the object's Kinetic energy is increasing because the velocity is increasing. According to the Work-Kinetic theorem, there is positive work done on the object.
W = KE2 - KE1, and KE2 > KE1 therefore, W is positive.

* Now, my question is if we were to apply the same concept on the Work-Potential theorem with the exact same scenario, would the work be positive as well? When thinking about it, the free-falling object in a vacuum, by time, is getting closer to Earth and therefore the height is decreasing. So, W = PE2 - PE1, and PE2 < PE1 and that would result in work (W) to be (-) negative. Why is that? Isn't supposed to be that the work is positive in that scenario, why are the results different when using the Work-kinetic theorem as opposed to using the Work-Potential theorem to find the work?

Thanks, I appreciate your time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Let me start with an analogy. You have $100 in one bank account and $500 in a savings account. You withdraw $50 from your savings and deposit it your other bank account. Was that $50 a positive or negative transaction? In other words, did that transaction involve plus or minus $50?

In your scenario it's clear that the object increases its KE and loses gravitational PE. It's no more complicated than that.

The gravitational field/force, therefore, does positive work on the object.

That said, I must confess I've never heard of a work-potential theorem.
 
  • Like
Likes aljan9559 and vanhees71
  • #3
In your equation W = PE2 - PE1, if the symbol W stands for the work done by gravity on the falling object, you have written it incorrectly. It should be written as W = - (PE2 - PE1). The change in potential energy is the negative of the work done by the conservative force. That comes from the definition of potential energy.
 
  • Like
Likes aljan9559
  • #4
I found my textbook mentioning that about Work-kinetic:

Screenshot 2022-01-16 3.03.16 PM.png


So, do they mean that we shouldn't be applying W = PE2-PE1 and W = KE2 - KE1 in one scenario?

Also, this is how the book built up the W = PE2 - PE1 equation.

Screenshot 2022-01-16 3.07.19 PM.png
Screenshot 2022-01-16 3.07.27 PM.png
 
  • #5
In this particular example there are two forces doing work on the book, the person lifting the book and gravity. Suppose the book is lifted at constant speed so that its kinetic energy does not change. Then
1. The work done by the person on the book is Wperson = + mgh
2. The work done by gravity on the book is Wgrav. = - mgh
3. The change in potential energy is the negative of the work done by gravity, PE2 - PE1 = -(-mgh) = + mgh.

In this particular example it turns out that the change in potential energy is also the work done by the person but that cannot be generalized into a rule. The rule is the change in potential energy is equal to the negative of the work done by conservative forces only. The force exerted by the person is not conservative but gravity is.
 
  • Like
Likes aljan9559

FAQ: Work-Kinetic and Work-Potential theorems relation

What is the Work-Kinetic Theorem?

The Work-Kinetic Theorem states that the work done by the net force on an object is equal to the change in the object's kinetic energy. In other words, the work done on an object is equal to the change in its speed or velocity.

What is the Work-Potential Theorem?

The Work-Potential Theorem states that the work done by a conservative force on an object is equal to the negative change in the object's potential energy. This means that the work done by a conservative force can be converted into potential energy.

How are the Work-Kinetic and Work-Potential Theorems related?

The Work-Kinetic and Work-Potential Theorems are related in that they both involve the concept of work and energy. The Work-Kinetic Theorem deals with the relationship between work and kinetic energy, while the Work-Potential Theorem deals with the relationship between work and potential energy. They are both fundamental principles in the study of mechanics.

Can the Work-Kinetic and Work-Potential Theorems be applied to all types of forces?

No, the Work-Kinetic and Work-Potential Theorems can only be applied to conservative forces. Conservative forces are those that do not depend on the path taken by an object, only on its initial and final positions. Non-conservative forces, such as friction, do not follow these principles and therefore cannot be analyzed using these theorems.

What are some real-life applications of the Work-Kinetic and Work-Potential Theorems?

The Work-Kinetic and Work-Potential Theorems have many real-life applications, such as in the design of roller coasters and other amusement park rides. These theorems are also used in engineering and physics to calculate the energy and work involved in various systems, such as in the design of machines and structures. Additionally, these theorems are important in understanding the motion and behavior of objects in our everyday lives, such as the movement of a ball rolling down a hill.

Similar threads

Back
Top