0

I usually don't envy a simple table, but I'm a little bit concerned with why it isn't apprently wasting any energy while doing some "useful things".
I'm not a physicist and I can't find an example that explain why the table nature is so lucky respect to us.
I know the table is not doing any work since It's not moving anything, but I also know that if I try to push a big truck the chances that I will win the lottery are far higher than me making it fo 1 cm.
As a result, I would have wasted all my energy for that day and I would probably end up eating an ice-cream.
The table instead seems a tireless and much more productive worker, capable of holding dozens of book for an endless interval. This is a harsh true.
I'll guess the answer is related with the chemistry of the materialm but I wuold love to really understand it.
Is the table slowly dissipating enrgy at a such slow rate that it's difficult to be aware of? Probably not, but it would be much easier.

!!!!!Update!!!!:
I tried to look down at what my misconception was, and I think it's not clear to me if whenever you ( or some object) apply a force on another thing, energy is always consumed/stored. Like in the case of the book on the table.
I really like the comments below and how the topic seems to be a little controversial.
On the table example I got this from the question suggested in the comment:
For the table, the situation is different, because the molecules of the table aren't constantly "relaxing" and "contracting". Once you place the book onto the table, the atoms are pushed in a little bit (depending on how sturdy the table is) and settle into a new equilibrium due to electromagnetic and nuclear forces. And also @Maury Markowitz has given an interesting insight.
I don't think the question is duplciate in any way of the one which is supposed to be so if someone find it interesting help me to free it, and make it independent :)

Gabriele Scarlatti
  • 711
  • 1
    Turned the other way 'round this question has already been asked as https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1984/520 Are the answers there inadequate for some reason? – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Apr 11 '18 at 16:48
  • @dmckee thank you for linking that to me, I will take i look to the answers and sees if they answer my doubts! :) – Gabriele Scarlatti Apr 11 '18 at 16:51
  • I will edit the question to make it clear what I think is the misconception I've trouble understanding: Why applying a force to something does not always result in an energy consumption ? – Gabriele Scarlatti Apr 11 '18 at 17:10
  • @GabrieleScarlatti - it does result in energy consumption. You are confusing work with energy. The confusion arises because there are two common definitions of work, force times distance and change in energy. In this case, there is energy stored in the molecules of the table that will be released when you lift the book. So energy yes, work no. – Maury Markowitz Apr 11 '18 at 17:18
  • @MauryMarkowitz You can't separate the two definitions. To store energy in the intermolecular forces of the table you have to allow for a deformation of the table (i.e. you've relaxed the "ideal surface" assumption). But even in that case the the question remains, because energy is added to the table and the book is set down and removed from the table as the book is lifted up, but remains constant while the book is still. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Apr 11 '18 at 19:08
  • "Why applying a force to something does not always result in an energy consumption ?" This question rises from an imprecise understanding of what energy is in the physical sense. You've assuming that your casual understanding (which was leaned on your own muscular system) defines energy, but physicists define it with a self-consistent framework in which displacement is integral to work and work is energy transfer. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Apr 11 '18 at 19:10
  • @dmckee, more likely the OP is comparing the table to holding a book in one's outstretched arms. Your arms get tired, the table doesn't. – Solomon Slow Apr 11 '18 at 19:24

0 Answers0