A Couple of Basic Questions about Mechanics

  • Thread starter syberraith
  • Start date
  • #1
42
0
I'm writing a paper on a propulsion device and I could use some F/P ratio comparisons, like typical values for Newtons per Watt for propeller driven, jet driven, and rocket driven craft.

Also I ran in to a confusing point involving work and kinetic energy. if kinetic energy is 1/2 m v^2, then say a 1kg mass that is traveling at 1m/s, then according to the formula the mass has a kinetic energy of 0.5 joules.

Now let say the mass was accelerated from a velocity of zero to the velocity of 1m/s, by a force of 1 newton applied for one second. The definition of work state that the work applied to a mass increases the kinetic energy of that mass. So the 1 newton force applied for one second, resulted mass moving one 1 meter. The formula for work states that force times distance equals the energy added to the system, Thus 1 newton times 1 meter should equal one joule of energy added to the mass.

This is how I get two different answers for the kinetic energy of a 1kg mass that is moving at 1m/s.

Could someone point out my mistake in this please.

Best regards,

FredB
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
56
0
Your mistake is that a 1 N force applied for one second means that the body travels one meter. Your "jerk" (rate of change of acceleration) for 0 < t < 1, is 1. So integrating that 3 times you get:
[tex] s(t) = \frac{x^3}{3} [/tex] for 0 < t < 1

So the displacement is s(1) = [itex] \frac{1}{3} [/itex]
Now an easier way to get work from this:
[tex] Work = \delta E_k [/tex]

where your speed function is:
[tex] v(t) = \frac{x^2}{2} [/tex]

this should clear things up.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
42
0
I'm still confused.

Maybe could you point me to a good article on the subject. Wikipedia is what has confused me.

Then again maybe I can just ignore the N*m approach and use the delta Ek method instead.

I could still use some ball park figures for F/P ratios for propeller planes. jets, and rockets...
 
Last edited:
  • #4
56
0
All you need to know is that [itex]a(t) = v'(t) = s''(t)[/itex] and that [itex] s(t) = \int v(t) dt = \int \int a(t) dt^2[/itex].

And for work, there are a couple of formulas you can use.

[tex] W = \int F \cdot dx = \int F \cdot v dt [/tex]
[tex] W = \Delta E_{k} [/tex]

In terms of a good article, I know of none but i'll look. Best description i've ever seen of work is in the Feynman Lectures - Volume 1. (Maybe because I'm a huge sucker for Feynman :P)

EDIT: Maybe try this page: http://physics.info/work/
 
Last edited:
  • #5
nasu
Gold Member
3,772
429
Your mistake is that a 1 N force applied for one second means that the body travels one meter. Your "jerk" (rate of change of velocity) for 0 < t < 1, is 1. So integrating that 3 times you get:
The rate of change of velocity is called "acceleration". Jerk is the rate of change of acceleration.
In the example described in the OP there is a constant acceleration 1m/s^2.
The distance traveled in 1 s is 0.5 m and the work is 0.5 J, equal to the change in kinetic energy.

To the OP: just look up uniform accelerated motion.
 
  • #6
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
6,994
292
IF you are still confused, igmore posts #2 and #4, which are also confused and/or wrong.

To repeat what #5 said, in slightly different words:

The velocity increases linearly from 0 to 1 m/s over 1 second.
So the average velocity over the second is (0 + 1)/2 = 0.5 m/s
Distance traveled = average speed x time = 0.5 meters.
The work done = force x distance = 0.5 joules.
And that is the same as the kinetic energy = [itex]mv^2/2[/itex].
 
  • #7
42
0
I see.

So I erred in presuming that 1N applied to 1kg for one second would result in a displacement of 1m. It actually results in a displacement of 0.5m, and 1N acting through a distance of 1m would increase the kinetic energy by 1 joule it would just take longer than 1 second if the origninal velocity was zero.

Thanks, that's a relief. At least I know where to look now.

the calculus text I have on hand is rather poor. Barely a paragraph about the dot product of N*m. It's single variable calculus for non-science/engineering majors.

Feyman, I'm a fan. I'll see if I can find any of his basic physic lectures that were taped.
 
  • #8
56
0
IF you are still confused, igmore posts #2 and #4, which are also confused and/or wrong.
#4 is correct. Some of #2 is incorrect.
 

Related Threads on A Couple of Basic Questions about Mechanics

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
905
Top