Derivation of the kinetic energy equation in terms of distance.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the derivation of the kinetic energy equation using force and distance. Initially, the user attempts to derive the equation without considering velocity, leading to an incorrect conclusion. The correct approach involves recognizing the relationship between acceleration, distance, and time, specifically using the integral of force with respect to distance. The user realizes that mixing up differentials led to the confusion and clarifies that the correct kinetic energy equation is E = 0.5*M*(x')^2. This highlights the importance of accurately applying calculus in physics derivations.
CraigH
Messages
221
Reaction score
1
I have seen the derivation of the kinetic energy equation using

F=M*v'
and
E=F*x

And I can see how this works, however if you try to do this without thinking about velocity, and only thinking about the rate of change of distance, and the rate of change of rate of change of distance, then the derivation doesn't work, as shown below.

F = Force
M = Mass
x = Distance

Force = mass * acceleration and
Energy = the integral of force with respect to distance:

F = M * x''
E = integral ( F .dx )

sub F into E = integral ( F .dx )

E = integral ( M * x'' .dx )
E = M * integral ( x'' .dx )
E = M * x'

Which isn't true. E should equal 0.5*M*(x')^2
Why does this not work?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
CraigH said:
E = integral ( M * x'' .dx )
E = M * integral ( x'' .dx )
E = M * x'
How did you get that last step? (Are mixing up dx with dt?)
 
Ahhhhh yes I am. Thankyou! I get this now.
 
In case anyone was wondering

E = M * integral ( x'' .dx )

E= M * integral ( d(dx/dt)/dt .dx)

E = M * integral ( dx/dt .d(dx/dt))

E= M*0.5*(dx/dt)^2

E=0.5*M*(x')^2
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
758
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
2K
Back
Top