Calculating Work Using Green's Theorem

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
2 replies · 2K views
farso
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone.

I am going through examples for maths exams and am unsure on the final part of a question I am attempting so hoping you may help me?

Homework Statement



"Let C be the closed, piecewise smooth curve comprising individual curves C1 and C2
defined by r1 = (x, x2, 1) and r2 = (x,+√x, 1), respectively, with 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, see
Figure 1. Evaluate the work done by the vector field ∇ on a particle moving around
curve C once in the anticockwise direction, i.e. directly compute the integral

[tex]\oint \nabla \theta (x,y,z) dr[/tex]"


Homework Equations



As per above/below

The Attempt at a Solution



[tex]\theta (x,y,z) = x^2z^2+3yz+2x[/tex]

hence

[tex]\nabla \theta (x,y,z) = (2xz^2+2, 3z, 2zx^2+3y)[/tex]


So, using green's theorem (I think this is correct)

[tex]\oint \nabla \theta (x,y,z) dr[/tex]

is the same as

[tex]\int_{y=x^2}^{y=\sqrt{x}}\int_0^1 \nabla \theta (x,y,z) dxdy[/tex]

I think this is correct, but can't seem to find the next "step". Id be grateful if anyone could tell me if I am on the right track, and maybe show me where to go on the next step?

Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
farso said:
"Let C be the closed, piecewise smooth curve comprising individual curves C1 and C2
defined by r1 = (x, x2, 1) and r2 = (x,+√x, 1), respectively, with 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, see
Figure 1. Evaluate the work done by the vector field ∇ on a particle moving around
curve C once in the anticockwise direction, i.e. directly compute the integral

[tex]\oint \nabla \theta (x,y,z) dr[/tex]"

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the question, as I can't see Figure 1, but to me, the work done by the vector field [itex]\mathbf{\nabla}\theta[/itex] would involve a dot product, and would be a scalar quantity:

[tex]W=\oint \mathbf{\nabla}\theta\cdot d\textbf{r}[/tex]



So, using green's theorem (I think this is correct)

[tex]\oint \nabla \theta (x,y,z) dr[/tex]

is the same as

[tex]\int_{y=x^2}^{y=\sqrt{x}}\int_0^1 \nabla \theta (x,y,z) dxdy[/tex]

This makes no sense...Where exactly did you use Green's theorem and how?

Instead, just break the path integral into two sections (over [itex]C_1[/itex] and [itex]C_2[/itex]) and integrate it directly... what is [itex]d\textbf{r}[/itex] for the first section? How about the second?
 
Hi

Thanks for the speedy reply!

Looking at it again and the definition of greens theorem I am not entirely sure why I chose to try and use it.

Are you suggesting that I do it as:

[tex]\oint \nabla \theta (x,y,z) dr =[/tex][tex]\int_{0}^{1} \nabla \theta (x,y,z) dr_1[/tex] + [tex]\int_{0}^{1} \nabla \theta (x,y,z) dr_2[/tex]

where [tex]dr_1 = (1,x^{2},0)[/tex] and [tex]dr_2 = (1, -(1/2)x^{-1/2}, 0)[/tex]

So... If this is correct, do I just do the dot product of that with [tex]\nabla \theta (x,y,z)[/tex]?
 
Last edited: