Deriving x(t) from work-energy theorem

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on deriving the position function x(t) from the work-energy theorem as presented in K&K's mechanics text. The equation derived, x = ∫ √{2m(F(x) - F(x₀))} dt, is identified as incorrect due to the improper integration of force. The correct approach involves integrating the force function rather than the force itself, particularly when considering a spring force represented by F = -kx. Additionally, the mass m should be factored as 1/m in the derivation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the work-energy theorem in classical mechanics
  • Familiarity with calculus, specifically integration techniques
  • Knowledge of force functions, particularly Hooke's law (F = -kx)
  • Basic concepts of kinematics, including velocity and acceleration
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the work-energy theorem in K&K's mechanics text
  • Learn about integrating force functions in classical mechanics
  • Explore the implications of mass in kinematic equations
  • Investigate the behavior of systems under spring forces and their motion equations
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators teaching mechanics, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of classical mechanics and kinematics.

autodidude
Messages
332
Reaction score
0
In K&K's text on mechanics, after they present the derivation of the work energy theorem:

[tex]\frac{1}{2}mv^2-\frac{1}{2}mv_0^2=\int_x_0^x F(x) dx[/tex]

It is mentioned that since [tex]v=\frac{dx}{dt}[/tex], we could solve for [tex]\frac{dx}{dt}[/tex] and integrate again to find x(t)

I tried that with [tex]v_0=0[/tex] just to make things a little easier and ended up with something like:

[tex]x=\int \sqrt{2m(F(x)-F(x_0))}dt[/tex]

which looks horrible and wrong

Is this heading down the wrong path? How would you do it when [tex]v_0[/tex] is not zero?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your derivation is not right; it must be an integral of force rather than force itself under the radical.

As an example, consider the case when F = -kx (mass attached to a spring).
 
As voko says, plus, you have m where it should be 1/m.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K