Derivation of Kinetic energy formula and energy principle

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the derivation of the kinetic energy formula from the work-energy principle. The initial derivation correctly leads to W = 1/2mv², but the omission of the constant C in the integration process raises questions. It is clarified that work is represented as a definite integral, which eliminates the arbitrary constant, resulting in W = 1/2 m (v² - v_i²). The work done corresponds to the change in kinetic energy when moving from an initial to a final velocity. The conversation emphasizes understanding the nature of definite integrals in calculating work.
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 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 1 person
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
483
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top