How Does Force x Distance Relate to Potential Energy and Work Done?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between force, distance, work done, and potential energy, particularly in the context of gravitational forces and energy transformations. Participants explore the definitions and implications of work done, potential energy, and kinetic energy in various scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question the nature of work done, whether it refers to continuous force or not, and how this relates to potential energy. There are inquiries about the implications of gravitational force and the conditions under which potential energy decreases. Some discuss the definitions of variables in kinetic energy equations and the role of friction in work done.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with various interpretations being explored. Some participants provide clarifications on concepts like conservative forces and the relationship between work and potential energy. However, there is no explicit consensus on the definitions and implications being debated.

Contextual Notes

Participants express confusion over specific terms and scenarios, such as the meaning of variables in equations and the effects of applied forces versus gravitational forces. There is also mention of assumptions regarding continuous versus non-continuous forces and the impact of friction on motion.

primarygun
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Work Done Sorry, Still have some Qs

Work done refers to a force x distance.
Or a force (continuous) x distance?
I think it is the second one when I think of the potential energy, right?
For PE=mgh,
How to prove it? And when an object falls, it loses potential energy, why?
Where is the negative sign?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
How to determine F=Weight? Isn't that if you apply mg upward, the distance will be 0?
So we can only think of it is falling with a force mg and the distance traveled but not think of it being elevated for the proof of the equation?
 
you know that the work done by a conservative force does not depend on path

this is how to prove it:
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    6.6 KB · Views: 459
Potential energy has no sign since it is not a vector.
Work= constant force (continuous)x distance.
If it is added by a continuous force, the object should not stopped no matter there is friction(smaller than applied force). So not continuous force?
 
Last edited:
In $$ KE=1/2mv^2 $$
Why the proof is using u=0 but not v=0? Isn't after the work is done, v=0?
 
Work done by a constant force [itex]\vec{F}[/itex], acting over a displacement [itex]\vec{s}[/itex] is:

[tex]W = \vec{F}.\vec{s}[/tex]

Take a constant gravitational force acting on a mass: [itex]\vec{F} = m\vec{g}[/itex]. The force acts to make the mass fall through a displacement of [itex]\vec{s} = \vec{h}[/itex], where [itex]\vec{h}[/itex] is directed downwards. The work done by gravity on the mass as it falls is:

[tex]W = m\vec{g}.\vec{h} = mgh[/tex],

which is positive since the force and the displacement vectors are in the same direction.

Gravity is a conservative force, and the change in potential energy associated with such a force is the negative of the work done by the force. i.e.

[tex]\Delta U = -W[/tex]

For gravity

[tex]\Delta U = -mgh[/tex],

so the potential energy decreases as the mass falls.
 
What are you talking about?

It would help if, when you ask "Why the proof is using u=0 but not v=0? Isn't after the work is done, v=0?", you tell us what u and v are. I assume that v is the speed of some object. In that case, yes, the kinetic energy of an object of mass m is [itex]\frac{1}{2}mv^2[/itex]. I have no idea what "u" is. IF work is done to bring the object to a halt, then, yes, v= 0 when it is no longer moving. I don't know why whatever problem you are talking about doesn't take v= 0 because I don't know what problem you are talking about.

"If it is added by a continuous force, the object should not stopped no matter there is friction(smaller than applied force). So not continuous force?"

I assume you are talking about a problem in which there is a friction force, fe, and an "applied force", fa, opposite to the friction. The net force will be fa-fe. Assuming that fa> fe, the not come to a halt. In fact it will keep accelerating. How about posting a specific problem so we can see what you are talking about?
 
I think the force in the equation of work done is continuously applied,like weight, right?
And the object would not stop finally, right?

For the PE, a weight of 100N is lifted up by a man up to a height of 10m.
Why the force applied by the man continuously is 100N?
Isn't 100 N causing no effect on the weight as it is compensated by the mg of the weight, right?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K