Basic question concerning the concept of a work integral

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of work done by a force when moving an object along the x-axis. Initially, a 10N force is applied to move a mass from x=5m to x=2m, resulting in a calculation of +30J of work. However, when evaluating the work as an integral, the force is considered negative due to the direction of movement, leading to a calculation of -30J. This discrepancy highlights the importance of correctly defining the direction of force in work calculations. The conclusion emphasizes that the integral approach correctly accounts for the negative work done when the force opposes the movement.
aftershock
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Edit: I think I figured it out actually. Left must be negative by the way I introduced the x-axis meaning the force is -10 not 10 when I set up the integral.

Hey guys, this isn't a homework question but solving a homework problem led me to think about this.

Imagine I have a mass situated on the x-axis. The mass is at x=5m, I then apply a 10N force to the object until it is at x=2m.

The force is 10, the distance is 3, they're in the same direction and the angle is zero so I performed +30J of work.

But now if I evaluate it as an integral I can say the force is ∫10dx evaluated from 5 to 2 which becomes 10*2 -10*5 = -30

So the integral tells me I performed negative work:confused: How could that be?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your integral is missing a minus sign, since the force is -10N.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top