Kinetic Energy Formula Expansion / Wnet relation.

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation and understanding of kinetic energy and its relation to work done by forces, particularly in the context of conservative systems. Participants explore the definitions and implications of kinetic and potential energy, as well as the relationships between them.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster seeks clarification on the derivation of kinetic energy formulas and how work relates to energy. Some participants question the implications of work done in conservative systems and the conservation of energy when objects are moved or dropped. Others discuss the definitions of potential energy and how they relate to kinetic energy changes.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the concepts, raising questions about the relationships between work, kinetic energy, and potential energy. There is a recognition of the complexities involved in understanding these relationships, particularly in scenarios involving conservative forces. Some guidance has been offered regarding the definitions and equations, but no consensus has been reached on all points raised.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating assumptions about energy conservation and the definitions of potential energy in different contexts, including scenarios where objects are moved above or below a defined zero potential level. There is an acknowledgment of the need for clarity on how work is accounted for in these situations.

Senjai
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] Kinetic Energy Formula Expansion / Wnet relation.

Homework Statement


I was given two formulas for Kinetic Energy from my physics teacher, can anyone explain were they derive from? I like to know were they come from, not just how to use them

Homework Equations



[tex]E_k = \frac{1}{2}mv^2[/tex]

[tex]W_{net} = \Delta E_k[/tex]

[tex]\Delta E_g = mgh[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



none, i just would like to know were they come from, i know they have to come from some formula i already know. How does Work done by a net force differ from work done by an arbitrary force?
[tex]W_{net} = ( \frac{1}{2}m_1v_2^2) - ( \frac{1}{2}m_1v_1^2)[/tex] << is that right and how does work equal energy?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Kinetic energy is simply defined that way. Similarly, potential energy is defined as the work done to bring a particle to a certain point. Potential energy comes from work. The work to bring a particle of mass m to a point above the Earth is

[tex]W = \int \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{r}[/tex]

since gravity can be approximated, in a flat Earth approximation, to only act in the up and down direction, the only work done can be in that same direction, i.e.

[tex]W = \int F dz[/itex]<br /> <br /> where I have defined the z direction to be up and down direction. The gravitational force close to the Earth is a constant, mg, so the work to bring a particle to a point above the Earth is<br /> <br /> [tex]W = mg \int_{Height1}^{Height2} dz = mg(h_2 - h_1) = mgh_2 - mgh_1 = \Delta E_g[/tex]<br /> <br /> Most of the time you define your first height to have a zero potential energy, so that you just have [itex]E_g = mgh_2 = mgh[/itex].<br /> <br /> From energy conservation you know that the change in the potential energy must equal the change in kinetic energy, so..<br /> <br /> [tex]W_{net} = \Delta E_g = \Delta E_k[/tex]<br /> <br /> Different forces have different potential energies, but if you know the difference in kinetic energies you will know the work done (given a conservative system), so you would be right.[/tex]
 
I was pondering something, if you picked up a rock, carried it up to the top of the hill, youd transfer a certain amount of Kinetic energy to the rock as your doing work against gravity, which is a conservative system. from my understanding work must be given back in some way in a conservative system, so you bring the rock to the top of the hill, and somehow it rolls down to the origin you picked it up at, so the Kinetic Energy would be 0 right? same with displacent E_k1 = E_k2 so when E_k2 - E_K1 would equal 0 change in kinetic energy right? meaning that no work was exerted... how is this possible, you had to exert work to get it up there, and you didnt get the work back.. this is how I am lost.
 
Same with if you pick up something, and drop it, what if it goes past its original origin e.g pick it up off the floor, drop it, and it goes through the floor. in this case energy wouldn't be conserved right?

EDIT: on another note, so..

[tex]W_{net} \equiv \frac{1}{2}mv^2[/tex] [/color]

equals by definition?
 
Last edited:
Hmm, not quite sure what you are saying, but here is what happens.

You carry a rock to the top of a hill, you have done work to get that rock up there. The rock now has potential energy equal to mgh (if we define the zero potential to be at the initial height). The kinetic energy when you first drop it at height h is zero, and the potential energy when it reaches the bottom of the hill is defined as zero. So from [itex]E_i = E_f[/itex] we have [itex]mgh = \frac{1}{2}mv^2[/itex]. The work you have done to get the rock to the top now gives the rock kinetic energy when it reaches its initial state.
 
I see, thanks much!
 
You can only say

[tex]W_{net} \equiv \Delta U[/tex]

where U is the potential energy

If the system is conservative you can further say that

[tex]\Delta U = \Delta T[/tex]

where T is the kinetic energy.

So, you could claim (in a conservative system)

[tex]W_{net} = \frac{1}{2}mv_2^2 - \frac{1}{2}mv_1^2[/tex]

Example of dropping something that goes below floor
[tex]E_i = E_f[/tex]

[tex]mgh = -mgh_2 + \frac{1}{2}mv^2[/tex]

the particle went below the zero potential, so the final energy will have a nonzero potential energy (in fact it is below the zero potential, so it is negative).
 
no clue how much that helps, thank you so much..

ill be back with more kinetic questions soon haha..
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
35
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K