I How does my book get ##\frac{1}{2}## by this derivation?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter n3pix
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Derivation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the derivation of the work done by a force on a free particle, leading to the kinetic energy formula. It begins with the line integral of force and generalizes the equation for work done, incorporating varying forces. Key questions arise regarding the legality of combining terms in the derivation and the disappearance of the factor of two during integration. The final result shows that the work done equals the change in kinetic energy, represented as W(A→B) = (1/2)Mv_B^2 - (1/2)Mv_A^2. Clarifications are provided on the origin of the factor of two and the presence of (1/2) in the kinetic energy equation.
n3pix
Messages
15
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
A question about derivation of the formula of Work.
The integral is called the line integral of ##F## from ##A## to ##B##. The work done in the displacement by the force is defined as,

##W(A\rightarrow B)=\int_A^B \vec{F}.dr##

where the limits ##A## and ##B## stand for the positions ##r_A## and ##r_B##.

We now return to the free particle subject
to forces. We want to generalize ##Eq. (5.6)##, which we here repeat,

##\frac{1}{2}Mv^2-\frac{1}{2}Mv_0^2=\vec{F}.(y-y_0)##

to include applied forces that vary in direction and magnitude but are known as functions of position throughout the region where the motion occurs. By substituting ##\vec{F}=M\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}## into ##Eq. (5.12)##, where ##\vec{F}## is the vector sum of the forces, we find for the work done by these forces,

##W(A\rightarrow B)=M\int_A^B \frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}.d\vec{r}##

Now

##d\vec{r}=\frac{d\vec{r}}{dt}.dt=\vec{v}dt##

So that

##W(A\rightarrow B)=M\int_A^B (\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}.v)dt##

where the limits ##A## and ##B## now stand for the times ##t_A## and ##t_B## when the particle is at the positions designated by ##A## and ##B##. But we can rearrange the integrand,

##\frac{d}{dt}v^2=\frac{d}{dt}(\vec{v}.\vec{v})=2\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}.\vec{v}##

Question 1: In the above equation, how could we gather ##\vec{v}## because one of them is in the derivation (##\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}##) and another one is free (##\vec{v}##) and together they do ##\frac{d}{dt}(\vec{v}.\vec{v})##. Is it legal to do?

so that

##2\int_A^B(\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}.\vec{v})dt=\int_A^B(\frac{d}{dt}v^2)dt=\int_A^Bd(v^2)=(v_B^2-v_A^2)##

Question 2: Here, there were ##2## in the first equation but where is it in the second equation? It's confusing...

On substitution in ##Eq. (5.14)## we have an important result:

##W(A\rightarrow B)=\int_A^B \vec{F}.d\vec{r}=\frac{1}{2}Mv_B^2-\frac{1}{2}Mv_A^2##

for the free particle. This is a generalization of ##Eq. (5.6)##. We recognize,

##K=\frac{1}{2}Mv^2##

Thanks...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
n3pix said:
##\frac{d}{dt}v^2=\frac{d}{dt}(\vec{v}.\vec{v})=2\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}.\vec{v}##

Question 1: In the above equation, how could we gather ##\vec{v}## because one of them is in the derivation (##\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}##) and another one is free (##\vec{v}##) and together they do ##\frac{d}{dt}(\vec{v}.\vec{v})##. Is it legal to do?

In general:

##\frac{d}{dt}(\vec{u}.\vec{v})= \vec u \cdot \frac{d\vec{v}}{dt} + \frac{d\vec{u}}{dt} \cdot \vec{v}##

Hence:

##\frac{d}{dt}(\vec{v}.\vec{v})= 2\vec v \cdot \frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}##

n3pix said:
so that

##2\int_A^B(\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}.\vec{v})dt=\int_A^B(\frac{d}{dt}v^2)dt=\int_A^Bd(v^2)=(v_B^2-v_A^2)##

Question 2: Here, there were ##2## in the first equation but where is it in the second equation? It's confusing...

On substitution in ##Eq. (5.14)## we have an important result:

##W(A\rightarrow B)=\int_A^B \vec{F}.d\vec{r}=\frac{1}{2}Mv_B^2-\frac{1}{2}Mv_A^2##

for the free particle. This is a generalization of ##Eq. (5.6)##. We recognize,

##K=\frac{1}{2}Mv^2##

Thanks...

I don't understand your question here. That's a just a straight integration of the above equation.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and n3pix
PeroK said:
In general:

##\frac{d}{dt}(\vec{u}.\vec{v})= \vec u \cdot \frac{d\vec{v}}{dt} + \frac{d\vec{u}}{dt} \cdot \vec{v}##

Hence:

##\frac{d}{dt}(\vec{v}.\vec{v})= 2\vec v \cdot \frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}##
I don't understand your question here. That's a just a straight integration of the above equation.

I mean, in this quote;

n3pix said:
##W(A\rightarrow B)=M\int_B^A (\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}.\vec{v})dt##

where the limits ##A## and ##B## now stand for the times ##t_A## ##t_A## when the particle is at the positions designated by ##A## and ##B##. But we can rearrange the integrand,

##\frac{d}{dt}{\vec{v}}^2=\frac{d}{dt}(\vec{v}.\vec{v})=2\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}.\vec{v}##

In the integral (##W(A\rightarrow B)=M\int_B^A (\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}.\vec{v})dt##) the integrand is ##(\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}.\vec{v})## and it can not be equal to ##(\frac{d}{dt}{\vec{v}}^2)##. But the derivation says that it is equal to this. Check it again please.

In my second question, I mean that

##2\int_A^B(\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}.\vec{v})dt=\int_A^B(\frac{d}{dt}v^2)dt=\int_A^Bd(v^2)=(v_B^2-v_A^2)##

In this integral, first stage has ##2## (##2\int_A^B(\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}.\vec{v})dt##) but in the second stage it doesn't have ##2## (##=\int_A^B(\frac{d}{dt}v^2)dt##) Where the ##2## gone?

And I want to add another question.

In the last equation (##W(A\rightarrow B)=\int_A^B \vec{F}.d\vec{r}=\frac{1}{2}Mv_B^2-\frac{1}{2}Mv_A^2##) Where the ##\frac{1}{2}## came from? I can't see any ##\frac{1}{2}## in the all of the derivation.

Thanks again.
 
n3pix said:
In this integral, first stage has ##2## (##2\int_A^B(\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}.\vec{v})dt##) but in the second stage it doesn't have ##2## (##=\int_A^B(\frac{d}{dt}v^2)dt##) Where the ##2## gone?

Just look at the previous equation:

##\frac{d}{dt}(\vec{v}.\vec{v})= 2\vec v \cdot \frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}##

That's where the ##2## comes from!

The final ##\frac 1 2## arises simply by dividing both sides of the equation by ##2##.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and n3pix
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top