Derivation of Kinetic energy formula and energy principle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the kinetic energy formula from the work-energy principle, exploring the integration of force over displacement and the implications of definite versus indefinite integrals in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a derivation of kinetic energy from work, questioning whether they omitted necessary steps or constants in their integration.
  • Another participant suggests performing the integration as a definite integral between initial and final velocities, clarifying that this eliminates the need for an arbitrary constant.
  • A later reply confirms the integration is correct and explains that the constant C can be determined by considering the scenario where no work is done.
  • One participant expresses confusion about why work is considered a definite integral, prompting further clarification that it pertains to the work done between two specific points.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for definite integrals in the context of work, but there remains some uncertainty regarding the integration process and the role of constants in the derivation.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions about the integration process and the implications of using definite versus indefinite integrals, as well as the assumptions made regarding initial and final conditions.

albertrichardf
Messages
165
Reaction score
11
Hi all,

Here is the derivation of kinetic energy from Work:

W = ∫Fds
From the second law of motion F = dp/dt, which is equal to mdv/dt, so:

W = m∫dvdx/dt which = m∫dv x v because dx/dt = v
Therefore W = 1/2mv2, when integrated.
However from simple algebra derivation, W = Δ1/2mv2.

Did I skip something in the derivation? I know that the actual integration would be 1/2mv2
+ C, where C is a constant. However I omitted the C. Is it because of that that I did not end up with the proper equation? If so, why would C = -1/2vi2. (vi because Δv = v - vi and the rest comes from kinetic energy equation.) Or is it because I wrongly integrated?

Any answers would be appreciated. Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do it as a definite integral between vi and vf, which corresponds to doing the original integral of Fds as a definite integral between an initial position si and final position sf.
 
Albertrichardf said:
Hi all,

Here is the derivation of kinetic energy from Work:

W = ∫Fds
From the second law of motion F = dp/dt, which is equal to mdv/dt, so:

W = m∫dvdx/dt which = m∫dv x v because dx/dt = v
Therefore W = 1/2mv2, when integrated.
However from simple algebra derivation, W = Δ1/2mv2.

Did I skip something in the derivation? I know that the actual integration would be 1/2mv2
+ C, where C is a constant. However I omitted the C. Is it because of that that I did not end up with the proper equation? If so, why would C = -1/2vi2. (vi because Δv = v - vi and the rest comes from kinetic energy equation.) Or is it because I wrongly integrated?

Any answers would be appreciated. Thanks

The formula for work is not an indefinite integral, it's a definite integral. That means that there is no arbitrary constant C. The definite integral gives:

W = 1/2 m (v^2 - v_i^2)

where v_i is the initial velocity. The work is only equal to the kinetic energy in the case of a force accelerating a particle from rest (v_i = 0).
 
You integrated correctly and C = -1/2vi2. To see that just keep in mind that the final time tf can be any time at all and in particular we can chose tf = ti in which case no time has elapsed no displacement has occurred and no work was done, so you have

0 = W = 1/2 m vf2 + C = 1/2 m vi2 + C,

hence C = -1/2 m vi2
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Thanks for the answers. However, there is something else I wish to clear up now. Why would work be a definite integral?
Thanks
 
Albertrichardf said:
Why would work be a definite integral?

Because it is the work done in moving from point A to point B.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
12K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K