Calculating Work: Contour Integration vs Stokes Theorem

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeff1evesque
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Work
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the work done by a force field \(\vec{F} = y\hat{x} - x^{2} \hat{y}\) around a specified contour. The original poster presents two methods: contour integration and Stokes' theorem, and notes a discrepancy in the results obtained from each method.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to compute work using contour integration and questions the validity of their result, suspecting an error. They also apply Stokes' theorem and find a different result, prompting them to seek clarification on the discrepancy.
  • Some participants question the signs used in the contour integration method, suggesting that the original poster may have misapplied the signs in their integrals.
  • Others point out that the force field is not conservative, which is relevant to the discussion of the work done around a closed path.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the potential errors in the contour integration approach. There is an exploration of the implications of the force field's properties on the results obtained from both methods.

Contextual Notes

The original poster refers to an attached picture for the contour, which is pending approval. The specific corners of the contour are also mentioned, which may be relevant to the calculations discussed.

jeff1evesque
Messages
312
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Given the attached picture, Calculate the work required to go around the contour shown if the force is [tex]\vec{F} = y\hat{x} - x^{2} \hat{y}[/tex]First by Contour integration:
Work = [tex]\oint \vec{F} \bullet \vec{dl} = \int_{a}^{b} (\vec{F} \bullet \hat{x})dx + \int_{b}^{c} (\vec{F} \bullet \hat{y})dy - \int_{c}^{d} (\vec{F} \bullet \hat{x})dx - \int_{d}^{a} (\vec{F} \bullet \hat{y})dy[/tex]

[tex]= \int_{1}^{2} (2) dx + \int_{2}^{3} (4)dy - \int_{2}^{1} (3)dx - \int_{3}^{2} (1)dy = 0[/tex]

I think the answer above is suppose to be -4 not 0.Now by Stokes Theorem:
When this was done with "Stokes theorem", we get the following:
Work = [tex]\oint \vec{F} \bullet \vec{dl} \equiv \int \int (\nabla \times \hat{F})\bullet \vec{ds} = - \int \int (2x + 1)( \hat{z} \bullet \hat{z})ds = \int_{2}^{3} \int_{1}^{2} (2x + 1)dxdy = -4[/tex]
Note: [tex]( \hat{z} \bullet \hat{z}) = 1[/tex] since [tex]( \hat{z} \bullet \vec{ds}) = ds[/tex]

Question:
When I look at this, Stokes method seems apparently correct, but the method before it seems wrong. Can someone help me find my error?Thanks,JL
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your attachment is still pending approval, but if we're speaking of the work done around a closed path, it's certainly not zero. This is due to the fact that the force field is not conservative. While the force is position dependent (as is required by a conservative force), it's curl, [tex]\nabla \times F[/tex], is not the zero vector.
 
jeff1evesque said:

Homework Statement


Given the attached picture, Calculate the work required to go around the contour shown if the force is [tex]\vec{F} = y\hat{x} - x^{2} \hat{y}[/tex]
The contour is the square with corners at (1, 2), (2, 2), (2, 3), and (1, 3).


First by Contour integration:
Work = [tex]\oint \vec{F} \bullet \vec{dl} = \int_{a}^{b} (\vec{F} \bullet \hat{x})dx + \int_{b}^{c} (\vec{F} \bullet \hat{y})dy - \int_{c}^{d} (\vec{F} \bullet \hat{x})dx - \int_{d}^{a} (\vec{F} \bullet \hat{y})dy[/tex]
Why do you have minus signs on the last two integrals? Assuming that your contour goes from point a to point b, then to point c, then to point d, then back to point a, these should all be "+". (Although the integrals themselves might be 0.)

[tex]= \int_{1}^{2} (2) dx + \int_{2}^{3} (4)dy - \int_{2}^{1} (3)dx - \int_{3}^{2} (1)dy = 0[/tex]
On the first leg, with x= t, y= 2, the integral is [itex]\int_1^2 2 dx[/itex] as you say. On the second leg, with x= 2, y= t, the integral is [itex]\int_2^3 (-4) dt[/itex]. Did you forget the "-" on "[itex]-x^2\vec{j}[/itex]"? On the third leg, with x= t, y= 3, the integral is [itex]\int_2^1 3dt= -\int_1^2 3dt[/itex]. You have the wrong sign. On the fourth leg, with x= 1, y= t, the integral is [itex]\int_3^2(-1) dt= \int_2^3 dt[/itex]. That is what you have, but, I think, because of two canceling sign errors!. Evaluating, the integral is 2- 4+ (-3)+ (1)= -4.

I think the answer above is suppose to be -4 not 0.


Now by Stokes Theorem:
When this was done with "Stokes theorem", we get the following:
Work = [tex]\oint \vec{F} \bullet \vec{dl} \equiv \int \int (\nabla \times \hat{F})\bullet \vec{ds} = - \int \int (2x + 1)( \hat{z} \bullet \hat{z})ds = \int_{2}^{3} \int_{1}^{2} (2x + 1)dxdy = -4[/tex]
Note: [tex]( \hat{z} \bullet \hat{z}) = 1[/tex] since [tex]( \hat{z} \bullet \vec{ds}) = ds[/tex]

Question:
When I look at this, Stokes method seems apparently correct, but the method before it seems wrong. Can someone help me find my error?


Thanks,


JL
 
Thanks Halls.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K