Clapeyron's Theorem: Explaining the 1/2 and Why It Matters

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Zouatine
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Clapeyron's theorem, specifically addressing the factor of 1/2 in the work done by a force and its implications. Participants explore the differences between constant and variable forces, the physical interpretation of these concepts, and their applications in scenarios such as spring mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why Clapeyron's theorem includes a factor of 1/2 in the work calculation, contrasting it with Maxwell-Betti's theorem where a similar factor does not appear.
  • Another participant explains that the factor of 1/2 arises because the force is not constant during the displacement, leading to the integration of force over distance.
  • A participant seeks clarification on the physical significance of a non-constant force compared to a constant force in the context of beam displacement.
  • Further elaboration is provided on the process of extending a spring, detailing how work is calculated differently when applying a gradually increasing force versus a constant force.
  • It is noted that in the case of a constant force, the energy stored in the spring is less than the total work done, with the difference attributed to kinetic energy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the implications of constant versus non-constant forces, but there is no consensus on the broader implications of Clapeyron's theorem or the specific applications discussed.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about equilibrium and the nature of forces may not be explicitly stated, and the discussion does not resolve the complexities of energy distribution in systems involving variable forces.

Zouatine
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
I am new here, so hi for all ^-^
I have a problem in the Clapeyron theorem, the work of a force by definition is equal to the force multiplied by the displacement, and in this theorem it says that the work = (1/2) * force * displacement. why there is 1/2 ?

I also saw Maxwell-Betti's theorem
it's says: we have a corp with two forces F1 and F2 and the displacement d1 of the force F1 and d2 of the force F2 so:
W = W1 + W2 + W '
W = [(1/2) * (F1) * (d1)] + [(1/2) * (F2) * (d2)] + [(F1) * (d ')]
d = displacement of the application point F1 under the effect of the force F2.
why there is no 1/2 in W '?

Thank you 'excuse my English is not good'
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because the force is not constant. Work = ∫Fdx = ∫kxdx = 1/2 kd2
This assumes equilibrium static displacement. If you apply a constant force F, the work done will be Fd. What happens to the extra energy?
 
Thanx Sir for your answer .I understand. But what is the physical sens of à force is not constant?
 
I mean what's the différence between a constant force and à force is not constante un the displacement of the beam.
 
Suppose you extend a spring by applying just enough force to extend it a little bit, then a little bit more, and so on, so that it is in equilibrium throughout the process. Strictly speaking this would take infinitely long, but imagine we approximate this by applying a force dF so that it extends by dx, where dF = kdx; then increase the force to 2dF and the extension to 2dx, and so on. At each step we apply a force F = kx and it moves through a distance dx, so the work done is Fdx = kxdx. If you integrate this from 0 to d, the work is 1/2 kd2 = 1/2 Fdd.
Now instead suppose you apply a constant force F = kd to the spring (e.g. by attaching a mass to it and letting go.) When it has extended to the equilibrium extension d the work done is Fd. But the energy stored in the spring is 1/2 Fd, just as in the first case. The remainder of the energy is the kinetic energy of the mass, which oscillates about the equilibrium displacement d.
Clapeyron is considering the first case.
 
I get it , thanks for your help Sir.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K