Calculating Work Done by a 2-D Force

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the work done by a two-dimensional force represented by the equation ((1 N/m)x) + (4 N). The problem involves moving a particle between specified positions in a two-dimensional space.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to calculate work by finding displacements and multiplying by force vectors but questions their approach after arriving at an incorrect answer. Some participants suggest integrating the force due to its non-constant nature and discuss the implications of conservative forces on work calculations.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring different interpretations of the problem, with some providing guidance on the use of integrals and dot products in calculating work. There is an ongoing exchange of ideas about the correct approach to take, particularly regarding the integration process and the significance of the force being conservative.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding mathematical notation and the integration process, as well as the need for clarification on the concept of conservative forces. The original poster expresses uncertainty about their understanding of the material.

jl9999
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
"Work Done by 2-D Force"
What work is done by a force = ((1 N/m)x) + (4 N), with x in meters, that moves a particle from a position 1 = (2 m) + (3 m) to a position 2 = - (4 m) - (3 m)?

I figured all I would have to do is find the displacement of the x and y coordinates after the force had acted on them and then multiply the displacement vectors by their corresponding x and y force vectors, then use some trig to get the total work done. The answer I came up with was 35J, which of course was wrong. What am I missing? any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The x-component has to be integrated, since force isn't a constant.

The exact formula for work done in higher dimensions along some curve is this.

W = \int_{r_0}^{r_1}F(r) \cdot dl

Note the scalar product between the force and displacement along curve.

Is this notation something you can make sense of, or do you need help breaking it down into geometric terms?
 
Yeah, I can't make complete sense of the notation. I'm guessing it's something about an integral and a dot product but I might need a little extra push. thanks
 
Well, in the problem you posted, the first simplification is noting that force is conservative. (You might want to look that up if you don't know how I know this.) That means that the work is the same regardless of the path taken. So let us move in just the X direction first, and then in just the Y direction.

The dot product means that we are only interested in force component along displacement. Since we are going to move along x first, only Fx is of interest. The integral becomes.

W_x = \int_{x_1}^{x_2} F_x(x, y) dx = \int_{2m}^{-4m} 1\frac{N}{m} x dx = \frac{1}{2}\frac{N}{m}\left((-4m)^2 - (2m)^2\right) = 6 Nm = 6J

Note that if Fx actually depended on y, you'd have to use y1, since no displacement in y took place yet. In contrast, on the second step, when moving in y direction, you'd be keeping x=x2. Of course, you could have started with y first, but again, in this case, it does not matter. And second step, similarly.

W_y = \int_{y_1}^{y_2} F_y(x, y) dy = \int_{3m}^{-3m} 4N dy = 4N\left((-3m) - 3m\right) = -24Nm = -24J

The total work is just the sum of the two, W = -18J.

I don't know how much you know about the integration, but it's basically area under the curve. If the curve goes negative, these regions are counted as negative area. Similarly, integrating from right to left gives the same answer as from left to right, but with a minus sign. Sketching Fx as function of x and Fy as function of y, and looking at the areas from x1 to x2 and from y1 to y2 respectively, should tell you where the integration results come from.
 
Now that I look at it again with your explanation in my mind it seems very easy. Anyway, thanks for your help and the quick tutorial.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K