B Confused by the relationship of work and kinetic energy

So the equation for work is W = F * s
F = m * a, so W = m * a * s
Transferring this to units of measurement gives us: J = kg * m * s-2 * m
Or simplified: J = kg * m2 * s-2
Transferring back to units of quantity: W = m * v2
How can that be correct? Obviously Ekin = 1/2 * m * v2. Where did that 1/2 go? Or is W =/= Ekin? Am I making some other kind of mistake?
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,956
3,606
Where did that 1/2 go?
It's the rules of Integration. Integrate xdx and you get x2/2
Graphically, it's the area of the v/t triangle or the F/x triangle etc etc.
 

PeroK

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2018 Award
9,106
3,280
So the equation for work is W = F * s
F = m * a, so W = m * a * s
Transferring this to units of measurement gives us: J = kg * m * s-2 * m
Or simplified: J = kg * m2 * s-2
Transferring back to units of quantity: W = m * v2
How can that be correct? Obviously Ekin = 1/2 * m * v2. Where did that 1/2 go? Or is W =/= Ekin? Am I making some other kind of mistake?
The ##\frac12## is effectively a conversion factor based on your choice of units. In any case, ##\frac12## is dimensionless and doesn't affect the dimensions or units in an equation.

For example, the area of a circle is ##A = \pi r^2##. Both quantities have dimensions of ##L^2## or SI units of ##m^2##. ##\pi## is a dimensionless, unit-less factor based on the geometry of the circle.
 

DrClaude

Mentor
6,820
2,941
Transferring back to units of quantity: W = m * v2
How can that be correct? Obviously Ekin = 1/2 * m * v2. Where did that 1/2 go? Or is W =/= Ekin? Am I making some other kind of mistake?
To add a somewhat more physical explanation to the very good posts of @sophiecentaur and @PeroK, when you write the ##v## in the two equations is not the same. In ##E_\mathrm{kin}##, it is the final speed, when the work has stopped, while in the equation for work, the speed will change while work is applied. In the case of constant acceleration, we can write ##W = m \langle v \rangle^2 = mv_f^2/2##, with ##\langle v \rangle## the average speed while the work is applied.

Edit: this assumes also that the speed was initially 0. Otherwise, we would have to write the equations in terms of ##\Delta v## and ##\Delta E_\mathrm{kin}##.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,405
4,653
So the equation for work is W = F * s
F = m * a, so W = m * a * s
Transferring this to units of measurement gives us: J = kg * m * s-2 * m
Or simplified: J = kg * m2 * s-2
Transferring back to units of quantity: W = m * v2
How can that be correct? Obviously Ekin = 1/2 * m * v2. Where did that 1/2 go? Or is W =/= Ekin? Am I making some other kind of mistake?
Dimension analysis is not the same as doing integration (or algebra if you assume constant acceleration). That's the mistake.

At constant acceleration, s=1/2at2

That's where the 1/2 comes from.
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"Confused by the relationship of work and kinetic energy" You must log in or register to reply here.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top