How to Calculate Work Done by a Force Along a Path?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the work done by a force vector along a specified path. The original poster presents a force vector and two different paths for an object moving in a two-dimensional space, seeking clarification on the correct approach to compute the work done.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the use of the dot product in calculating work, questioning the correct setup of integrals and the interpretation of vector components. There is discussion about whether the integrand is expressed correctly and how to handle the dot product of vectors.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, providing hints and corrections regarding the use of scalars and the nature of the dot product. There is a focus on ensuring that the calculations yield scalar quantities, and some participants are offering guidance on how to express the integrals properly.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing discussion about the notation and definitions related to vectors and scalars, with participants expressing uncertainty about the mathematical concepts involved. The original poster is also considering external resources for further clarification.

squelch
Gold Member
Messages
56
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Find the work done by the force [itex]\vec{F}=6\hat{i}+8\hat{j}[/itex] if the object starts from the origin, moves along the x-axis to the point (1,0), then moves in the y direction to the point (1,2). Find the work if instead the object moves diagonally from the origin to the point (1,2).

Homework Equations



[itex]W=\int{\vec{F}\cdot d\vec{s}}[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution



I'm supposing that the answer for the "first part" (the object is traveling horizontally and vertically only) is given by:

[itex]W=[\int^{1}_{0}{(6\cdot 1)\hat{i}+(8\cdot 0)\hat{j}}]+[\int^{2}_{0}{(6\cdot 0)\hat{i}+(8\cdot 2)\hat{j}}][/itex]

..but am not sure if this is the correct procedure, and am afraid to proceed to the second part of the question if I'm misunderstanding what appears to be the much simpler part of the question. That doesn't even look like an integrand is supposed to to me.

edit:
Am I simply overthinking this, and need to find the angle formed by the right triangle and the magnitude of F and work it out as
[itex]W=\int{|\vec{F}|cos(\theta)\cdot d\vec{s}}[/itex]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
squelch said:
[itex]W=[\int^{1}_{0}{(6\cdot 1)\hat{i}+(8\cdot 0)\hat{j}}]+[\int^{2}_{0}{(6\cdot 0)\hat{i}+(8\cdot 2)\hat{j}}][/itex]

..but am not sure if this is the correct procedure, and am afraid to proceed to the second part of the question if I'm misunderstanding what appears to be the much simpler part of the question. That doesn't even look like an integrand is supposed to to me.

edit:
Am I simply overthinking this, [STRIKE]and need to find the angle formed by the right triangle and the magnitude of F and work it out as [/STRIKE]
[itex][STRIKE]W=\int{|\vec{F}|cos(\theta)\cdot d\vec{s}}[/STRIKE][/itex]
The first ones almost right. When you take the dot product of 2 vectors, what kind of quantity do you get? What kind of quantity do you have there?

Remember:

##<a,b,c> \cdot <d,e,f> = ad + be + cf##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Well, you would get a ... forgive me if I'm using the wrong vocabulary here ... scalar vector, right?

I'm honestly not sure what I'm missing. I see the [itex]\vec{F}_x = 6\hat{i}[/itex], [itex]\vec{F}_y = 8\hat{j}[/itex], [itex]d\vec{s}_x = 1\hat{i}[/itex], and [itex]d\vec{s}_y = 2\hat{j}[/itex]

and then did [itex]\vec{F}_x \cdot d\vec{s}_x[/itex] and [itex]\vec{F}_y \cdot d\vec{s}_y[/itex], but I'm not sure that I'm expressing it in the integrand correctly.
 
Yes, you want scalars, and you are almost there. When you write out e.g. the first term in the first dot product, you forget a ##\hat i##:
$$6\hat i \cdot 1\hat{i} = 6 * 1\, (\hat i \cdot \hat i) = 6 * 1 * 1$$and now you have a scalar, so you can add it to other scalars.

If you want, you could write out the whole thing to show you understand it:
$$(6\hat \imath + 0 \hat \jmath)\cdot ( 1\hat{\imath} + 0 \hat \jmath) = \, ...$$where there also appears a term ##(\hat \imath \cdot \hat \jmath)##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
BvU said:
Yes, you want scalars, and you are almost there. When you write out e.g. the first term in the first dot product, you forget a ##\hat i##:
$$6\hat i \cdot 1\hat{i} = 6 * 1\, (\hat i \cdot \hat i) = 6 * 1 * 1$$ and now you have a scalar, so you can add it to other scalars.

If you want, you could write out the whole thing to show you understand it:
$$(6\hat \imath + 0 \hat \jmath)\cdot ( 1\hat{\imath} + 0 \hat \jmath) = \, ...$$where there also appears a term ##(\hat \imath \cdot \hat \jmath)##

You lost me at ##(\hat i \cdot \hat i)##, but I'm probabaly just misunderstanding notation. Does this yield ##\hat{i}^2##? I'm not sure what to do with that.

I'm also totally open to viewing a recommended video on this. I have trouble naming these concepts, which makes it difficult for me to look for reference material.
 
It's not a scalar vector, to the best of my knowledge that's not even a thing. It's just a scalar. i hat is a vector. If you look at the definition of a dot product a (dot) b, you see that it is magnitude(a)*magnitude(b)*cos(angle inbetween)

With i (dot) i, what do you get if you use this definition?

##\vec{a} \cdot \vec{b} = |a|*|b|*cos(\theta)##
##\hat{i} \cdot \hat{i} = ?## and just to see what happens (it's good to do at least once)
##\hat{i} \cdot \hat{j} = ?##

What it seems like to me is that you're treating ##a \cdot b## the same as you would treat ##a*b##
These are not the same thing.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
You lost me at ##\hat\imath\cdot\hat\imath##
Well, that is pretty quick. I don't know how to put it more explicitly. ##\hat\imath## is a unit vector in a certain direction. Length 1 and more or less by definition ##\hat\imath\cdot\hat\imath\equiv 1##. Not a square, but a dot product (and yes, more experienced folks write ##\hat\imath^2=1## for good reasons, comparable to ##\vec r \cdot \vec r = |\vec r | |\vec r| \cos 0 = |\vec r |^2##, in shorthand ##r^2## ).

You were evaluating ##W=\int{\vec{F}\cdot d\vec{s}} = (6\hat \imath + 0 \hat \jmath)\cdot ( 1\hat{\imath} + 0 \hat \jmath) \,+ \, ... = \, ...##. Write it out as if you were still in primary school and you're fine.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
I sought out a bit of outside help and reviewed your replies. Thanks for being so patient with me so far, I know that this is pretty basic stuff.

Please tell me if this procedure is sensible:

[tex]\begin{array}{l}<br /> W = \int_0^1 {{{\vec F}_x} \cdot d{{\vec s}_x} + } \int_0^2 {{{\vec F}_y} \cdot d{{\vec s}_y}} \\<br /> W = 6x\hat i|_0^1 + 8x\hat j|_0^2\\<br /> W = 6\hat i + 16\hat j<br /> \end{array}[/tex]
 
No good. W is not a vector. There can be no single ##\hat\imath## or ##\hat\jmath## in terms in the answer.
 
  • #10
Notice I made a mistake too:
##(6\hat \imath + 0 \hat \jmath)\cdot ( 1\hat{\imath} + 0 \hat \jmath) = \, ...## should be
##(6\hat \imath + 8 \hat \jmath)\cdot ( 1\hat{\imath} + 0 \hat \jmath) = \, ...
## and now applying the primary school rules still gives the same answer for the first term in W, namely 6. No ##\hat\imath##!

one of the rules being ## (\vec a + \vec b)\cdot(\vec c + \vec d) = \vec a \cdot \vec c + \vec b \cdot \vec c + \vec a \cdot \vec d + \vec b \cdot \vec d##
 
  • #11
So what I'm missing is that I should have dotted two ihats and two jhats together, and wound up with

W=6+16=22?
 
  • #12
Yup Yup
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K