Is F=-kx^2+ax^2+bx^4 Conservative?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around determining whether the force function F = -kx^2 + ax^2 + bx^4 is conservative. Participants explore various mathematical and theoretical methods to assess the conservativeness of the force, including line integrals, potential functions, and curl calculations. The conversation includes both conceptual and technical aspects related to conservative forces in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the given force is conservative, noting that spring forces are not always conservative.
  • Another participant suggests that work done by a conservative force in a closed path is zero, implying that ideal spring forces are conservative.
  • Several methods to test if a force is conservative are proposed, including checking line integrals, finding a potential function, and evaluating the curl of the force.
  • A participant provides a corrected force equation and derives a potential function, expressing confusion about the sign difference in the gradient.
  • Further exploration of a different force function is presented, with attempts to find the potential function and its gradient, raising questions about the equivalence of the force and gradient.
  • One participant emphasizes using the curl as a straightforward method to determine if the force is conservative, referencing Stokes' theorem to support their argument.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of conservative forces and the methods to determine conservativeness. There is no consensus on whether the original force function is conservative, and multiple approaches are discussed without resolution.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of assumptions in their calculations, such as the ideal nature of spring forces and the need for integral constants in potential functions. Unresolved mathematical steps and dependencies on definitions are noted.

anikmartin
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone, I have a question about conservative forces.
I am given a function F = -kx^2 + ax^2 + bx^4, where a, b, and k are constants. I am asked to determine if this force is conservative or not, I don't know know how to prove this mathematically or theoretically. Please help!

In this particular example the force is a spring force, spring forces aren't always conservative are they?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can use the fact that Work down by a conservative force in a closed path is zero.
I guess spring forces are always conservative if the spring is ideal.
 
anikmartin said:
I am asked to determine if this force is conservative or not, I don't know know how to prove this mathematically or theoretically.
There are several ways to mathematically test that a force is conservative. Here are a few:
(1) You can check that the line integral is zero along any closed path (equivalent to what rhia suggested).
(2) Or you can see if you can find a potential function whose -gradient equals the force function (hint: integrate).
(3) Or you can see if the curl of the force is zero.​
The last two checks should be easy. :smile:
 
Hi Doc AI,
Can you please explain the physical significance of the last two checks?
I don't understand things if I can't relate them to physical world.:(
Thanks a lot!
rhia
 
Okay I though that if the force was conservative, then the gradient could be used, I didn't know that it proves the force is conservative.

A correction in the force equation

F = -kx + ax^3 + bx^4

After integrating a found the potential equation to be
U = (kx^2)/2 - (ax^4)/4 - (bx^5)/5

using F = -dU/dx.

I found the gradient of U to be

grad(U) = (kx - ax^3 - bx^4)i

Is there a reason for the sign difference? I just learned gradients, in my Calc III class that I am taking right now, two weeks ago so I am still not comfortable with all of its properties.

Okay what if I have a force function of the type:

F = -kx^2y +(y^2)(z^2) + xyz ( I made this one up)

So took three integrals, with respect to x, y, and z separately, to get the potential function in each direction. Then I found the gradient of the potential function to be

grad(U) = (kyx^2 - (y^2)(z^2) - xyz)i + (k(x^2)y - (y^2)(x^2) - xyz)j + (k(x^2)y - (y^2)(z^2) - xyz)k

To find if the gradient equals the force function, do I find the absolute value of grad(U) , to make it a scalar function? I am not sure how to find if these two are equivalent.

Okay I took a guess to convert the force function into a vector function. First I found the partial derivatives of F with respect to x, y, and z. Then I took the integral with respect to x, y, and z. I found

F = -(k(x^2)y - xyz)i - (k(x^2)y + (y^2)(z^2) + xyz)j + ((z^2)(y^2) +xyz)k

When I took the integral with respect to each I didn't add the Integral constant, so maybe that could account for the difference. According to the scalar function F, when x = O, F = (y^2)(z^2), when z = 0, F = -k(x^2)y . .so these could be the missing constants in my vector function F??
Thanks for all your help.
 
I think the simplest way, is the curl.

If [tex]\vec{F} = M(x,y,z)\vec{i} + N(x,y,z)\vec{j} + Q(x,y,z)\vec{k}[/tex], then

[tex]\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{F} = \left| \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> \vec{i} & \vec{j} & \vec{k} \\<br /> \partial/\partial x & \partial/\partial y & \partial/\partial z \\<br /> M & N & Q \end{array} \right| = 0[/tex]

The reason for this, is the Stokes theorem, which says:

Let be S a surface oriented with a normal vector [tex]\vec{n}[/tex], limited by a closed simple curve C. If [tex]\vec{F}[/tex] is a vectorial field and its partial derivatives are continuous in that region, then:

[tex]\oint_{C} \vec{F}d\vec{r} = \iint_{S} (\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{F})\vec{n}dS[/tex]

--

If the curl is equal to zero, then the right term is zero as well, and the definition of conservative field is that the left integral is equal to zero.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K