|Register||Search||Today's Posts||Mark Forums Read|
|Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.|
| ||LinkBack||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
Question about work and friction
Question: A waiter carries a tray full of meals across the room. Is work
My first response: We can't answer the question yet, because the question is
flawed! Questions about work only make sense when they ask: Does (something)
do work on (some object)? Also, questions only make sense when the motion
is precisely described. So let's restate the question. In fact, let's ask
three different questions.
A. Does the waiter do work on the tray, as he starts from rest and then
reaches some final velocity? YES
B. Does the waiter do work on the tray, as he slows down to a stop? YES
C. Does the waiter do work on the tray, as he moves at constant velocity?
NO. To be more precise, NO NET WORK is done by the waiter on the tray.
But here is what I want to examine: "While moving at a constant velocity,
isn't friction between the waiter and the floor doing work on the waiter?"
I want to say "Yes, the friction force between the waiter and the floor
constantly retards the motion of the waiter (and thus also would retard the
motion of the tray.) The friction force acts over the distance that the
waiter is traveling;
the friction force thus does work on the waiter."
Is this correct to say? Can I say that the friction force effectively doing
work on the waiter's muscles?
I also want to say "However, the waiter constantly uses his muscles to
overcome this friction force, and continue moving forward at constant speed.
The waiter thus does work that is equal to the work of the friction force,
but in the opposite direction."
Can I say that he does work on, or within, his own muscles?
As you can see, I wish to explain something like: The work of A on B is
cancelled out by the work of B on A, hence the NET work on the TRAY comes
out to zero.
But how specifically should I describe this? Is my description ok? I have
the feeling that it is almost correct, but I just want to be as precise in
my wording as possible. (I've seen too many questions that were worded, or
answered vaguely, even in textbooks.)
Question about work and friction
"Robert" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
As Newton defines it, no. As the union defines it, yes.
When the waiter is applying force in the direction of motion,
then positive work is done.
Well, the work he is doing is negative (the force is opposite the
motion), and increases to zero at the end.
The waiter's work is overcoming the friction. The friction's
work is keeping the waiter from accelerating.
It is doing negative work, for the waiter's positive work.
Work is strictly force times distance, with a sign for whether
the force is in the same direction (positive) as the motion or
opposite the motion (negative). That is where the "net zero"
David A. Smith
|friction , question , work|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|How does skating even work?||Eltoropoo||Physics Forum||4||02-28-2006 12:56 PM|
|question on introducty linear momentum||Ian||Physics Forum||9||11-27-2004 12:12 PM|
|THE ETHER, QUANTUM MECHANICS & MODELS OF MATTER||Laurent||Physics Forum||6||01-09-2004 10:14 PM|
|Flaws in Current Atomic Theory?||cinquirer||Physics Forum||42||11-25-2003 06:58 PM|
|21st Century Dynamics||Donald G. Shead||Physics Forum||5||08-14-2003 11:43 PM|