Work of Force: Understanding \int \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{r}

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter hotcommodity
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Work
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of work done by a force, specifically the force of gravity on a falling object, using the integral expression \(\int \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{r}\). Participants explore the implications of directionality in the context of gravitational force and the associated potential energy changes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines work done by a force as \(\int \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{r}\) and attempts to relate it to the change in potential energy, expressing confusion about when to apply a negative sign.
  • Another participant notes that the change in height is negative when \(h_0 > h_f\), suggesting that this resolves the sign issue.
  • A participant questions when it is necessary to consider the direction of the force, particularly in relation to the sign of work done by gravity.
  • One participant emphasizes that direction must always be taken into account when computing work, explaining that the force of gravity points down and thus requires a corresponding downward distance differential.
  • There is a discussion about the coordinate system used, with some participants suggesting that using a downward positive direction could clarify the sign of the work done.
  • Concerns are raised about the definition of the dot product and how the angle between force and displacement affects the calculation of work.
  • Participants discuss the implications of defining the angle between force and displacement, noting that if they are in opposite directions, the cosine term would yield a negative value.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of directionality in the calculation of work. While some agree on the necessity of considering direction, others remain uncertain about how to apply it correctly in the context of gravitational force and potential energy.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential misunderstandings related to the definitions of variables, the coordinate system used, and the implications of the dot product in calculating work. There is no resolution to these uncertainties, and the discussion remains open-ended.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and practitioners in physics who are grappling with the concepts of work, force, and energy, particularly in the context of gravitational systems.

hotcommodity
Messages
434
Reaction score
0
I know that the work done by a particular force is defined to be:

[tex]\int \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{r}[/tex]

and this dot product is defined as:

[tex]|F||dr| cos(\theta)[/tex]

I want to show that the work done by the force of gravity on a falling object is [tex]-\Delta U[/tex], using [tex]h_0[/tex] and [tex]h_f[/tex] as my endpoints. So plugging in the information, I have:

[tex]\int^{h_f}_{h_0} F*cos(\theta)*dr = mg*cos(0) \int^{h_f}_{h_0} dr = mg(h_f - h_0)[/tex]

This is only the change in potential energy, rather than the negative change in potential energy. If I place a negative in front of mg to denote the direction of the force, it works out. But given the definition of the dot product where it uses absolute values, I don't see how I can do that. I'm having trouble knowing when to put in the minus sign, and when to leave it out, in other words, I'm not completely certain when it is necessary to take direction into account. If someone could explain my flawed reasoning, I would appreciate it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There's nothing wrong. Note that [itex]h_0>h_f[/itex], and so, if we denote net change of height by h, [itex]h_f-h_0=-h[/itex].
 
I see, I suppose the inequality tripped me up. So when is it necessary to take the direction of the force into account?

Edit: If [tex]h_f < h_0[/tex], that means gravity does negative work on the object. This can't be true since its kinetic energy increases.
 
Last edited:
It is always necessary to take direction into account when computing work. The force (mg) points down, thus your distance differential must also point down. Since dy points up, you need -dy:

[tex]W = \int \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{r} = \int mg (-dy) = -mg\int^{h_f}_{h_0}dy = -mg(h_f - h_0) = -\Delta U[/tex]
 
Thank you for the reply. If the force and the distance differential (I'm assuming that's dr) point down, I take it that we're using the coordinate system where down is positive. What is dy representitive of, and how do we know its direction?
 
hotcommodity said:
Thank you for the reply. If the force and the distance differential (I'm assuming that's dr) point down, I take it that we're using the coordinate system where down is positive.
If you used a coordinate system where down was positive, you wouldn't have had the problem. Even though you called it r, you actually used height as your position variable. That's why you got [itex]h_f - h_0[/itex] with the wrong sign.

What is dy representitive of, and how do we know its direction?
I used a vertical axis (y-axis) to represent position, which is more representative of what you actually did. Thus the y-coordinate represents the height above some origin. I used dy to represent a differential along that axis; since up is positive, we need to use -dy to represent the downward distance differential.
 
So, if you took the direction of dy into account, why didn't you take the direction of the force into account?

The thing that confuses me is the definition of the dot product. If we take the magnitudes of F and dr, and multiply them, and multiply that by the cosine of 0, we can't get a negative in front of [tex]\Delta U[/tex].
 
hotcommodity said:
So, if you took the direction of dy into account, why didn't you take the direction of the force into account?
But I did. The direction of the force is downward, in the direction of -y. (That's why I took -dy as the differential: I want to find the work done by gravity, which acts down.)

The thing that confuses me is the definition of the dot product. If we take the magnitudes of F and dr, and multiply them, and multiply that by the cosine of 0, we can't get a negative in front of [tex]\Delta U[/tex].
Why cosine of 0? If F and dr are in the same direction, then the angle between them is zero. But if F and dr are in opposite directions, the angle is 180 and cos(180) = -1. (So the angle depends on how you define dr.)

Since gravity acts down, it does positive work on an object which moves down. I must define the directions accordingly, or I'll get the wrong sign.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K