A peculiar definition of work on Wikipedia

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a definition of work presented on Wikipedia, specifically concerning the mathematical expression for work done by an external agent exerting force and torque on an object along a curved path. Participants are examining the validity of this definition and its implications in different coordinate systems.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the Wikipedia definition, suggesting it may be incorrect and arguing that work should simply be expressed as $$W = \int \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{r}$$.
  • Another participant raises a question about whether the torque is taken around the origin or the point defined by ##\vec{r}##, indicating a potential ambiguity in the definition.
  • A further reply suggests that even if the torque were around the point ##\vec{r}##, the definition might still be incorrect, emphasizing that meaningful decomposition occurs only when ##\vec{r}## is to the center of mass.
  • One participant expresses a definitive stance that they consider the definition a blunder and states they will ignore it.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the validity of the Wikipedia definition of work, with no consensus reached on its correctness or applicability.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights ambiguities in the definition, particularly regarding the reference point for torque and the path of the force application, which may affect the interpretation of the work done.

etotheipi
I came across this here:
The work done W by an external agent which exerts a force ##\vec{F}## (at ##\vec{r}##) and torque ##\vec{\tau}## on an object along a curved path C is: $$W = \int_{C} (\vec{F}\cdot d\vec{r} + \vec{\tau} \cdot \vec{n} d\theta)$$
Is this incorrect? If we setup any coordinate system and take torques about that coordinate system, then I would have thought we say the work done in that frame is $$W = \int_{C} \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{r} = \int_{C} \vec{\tau} \cdot d\vec{\theta} \quad \left( = \int_{C} \vec{\tau} \cdot \vec{n} d\theta \right)$$ So long as the curve ##C## represents the path of the point of application of the force. The definition Wikipedia gives appears to be double counting the work since we can show that the two expressions I equated are equivalent. I would however agree that another correct expression be $$W = \int \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{r}_{CM} + \int \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{r}' = \int \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{r}_{CM} + \int \vec{\tau}_{CM} \cdot d\vec{\theta}_{CM}$$ if ##\vec{r}'## represents the position of the point of application of the force w.r.t. the centre of mass.

I wondered whether anyone could clarify, since I'm not sure if the relation they gave makes any sense. Surely work is just ##\int \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{r}##? Thank you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
etotheipi said:
I came across this here:

Is this incorrect? If we setup any coordinate system and take torques about that coordinate system,
Are you sure they take the torque around the origin, and not around the point defined by r?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
A.T. said:
Are you sure they take the torque around the origin, and not around the point defined by r?

It doesn't specify, but even if it were about the the point ##\vec{r}## wouldn't it still be incorrect?

The only decomposition of that form which is meaningful is when ##\vec{r}## is to the centre of mass. But from the preceding statement it doesn't specify that the curve C is the path of the centre of mass. That is to say the the force need not be applied at the centre of mass of the body.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's a blunder; I'll ignore this definition!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
8K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K