Understanding derivation of kinetic energy from impulse?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between impulse, momentum, and kinetic energy. It highlights that the area under a force-time plot represents impulse, which is equivalent to the change in momentum. The key confusion arises from integrating with respect to velocity instead of time to derive kinetic energy. The explanation clarifies that by manipulating the equations, one can understand that work done is related to kinetic energy through integration in the velocity domain. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the importance of conceptual clarity in transitioning from time to velocity for calculating kinetic energy.
richsmith
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I have a question that annoys my basic understanding of kinetic energy.

I know if I have a force-time plot then the area under the curve is equivalent to the impulse imparted on an object (in units Newton-Seconds). I know that this is also equivalent to the change in momentum of the object i.e. Ft = delta mV

I know that i can get these values from the plot by simply intgrating the Force function wrt to time. Now I want to determine the kinetic energy involved in this event. I know that k.e. = 1/2mV^2 so I know that is simply the integral of the impulse w.r.t. to velocity

Now that is the part conceptually I don't really grasp. What does it really mean to integrate with respect to velocity? This means I am suddenly on a velocity :rolleyes: domain, not time, and I don't really understand this?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
While impulse is ∫Fdt, work is ∫Fdx. Since force can be viewed as the rate of change of momentum, you have F = dp/dt = m dv/dt. Thus:
W = ∫Fdx = ∫m (dv/dt) * dx = m∫dv*(dx/dt) = m∫v dv = ½mv² (which is kinetic energy).

Make sense?
 
After some head scratching yes it does, finaly.

I think my mistake has always been trying to integrate wrt time. I really had to step back and ask myself what i was after, work that is, which is not a time integral.

Manipulating dv/dt to dx/dt and then subbing in V now makes it algebraicly understandable.

Thanks alot.

Richard.
 
I have a question that annoys my basic understanding of kinetic energy.

Similar to questions which annoys my basic understanding of electrostatics?

Why not just calculate the final velocity of the body and then calculate the K.E.

Take as a caveat that the momentum of a body might not be directly proportional to K.E possesed by it.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top