Questions regarding generalized work equation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Obliv
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    generalized Work
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on generalizing the work equation, emphasizing that work is defined as the energy required to displace an object through a force in the direction of that displacement. The integral form of the work equation, W = ∫ F · ds, applies to both conservative and non-conservative forces, with the latter involving changes in kinetic and potential energy. It is clarified that bounds for the integral can be set in three dimensions, and solving these requires multivariable calculus. The distinction between conservative and non-conservative work is made, with conservative work being related to potential energy changes. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of understanding the mathematical framework for calculating work in various contexts.
Obliv
Messages
52
Reaction score
1
Hello, I am trying to generalize the work equation and understand the very definition of it. From what I understand, Work is the energy required to displace an object with a force in the direction of the displacement. (also the change in kinetic energy but I'm not going to worry about that yet)
W = \int \vec{F} \cdot {d}\vec{x} This equation makes sense to me. If I were to add bounds to the integral, would they be in 3-D if the displacement and force is in 3-D?
Otherwise
W = \int_{x_i}^{x_f} {F_x} {dx} + \int_{y_i}^{y_f} {F_y} {dy} + \int_{z_i}^{z_f} {F_z} {dz}
This method would get the work with calculus I know of. Is it possible to make bounds in multiple dimensions? If so, how would one solve them? Thank you!

edit: Oh one more question: This equation describes non-conservative work, right? What would describe conservative work? Just this? W = \vec{F} \cdot \vec {d}
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It describes a force that varies with position, unlike your second formula.

The generalized work integral is a line integral, which you'll be able to solve in the general case after you've taken multvariable calculus. It essentially let's you integrate over whatever path you need to integrate over for the problem.
 
The generalized equation for
Work = \int F.ds applies to both conservative and non conservative forces. For conservative forces , the work done is equal to - \Delta PE . For work done by conservative forces like springs in particular, performing the work integral where F = -kx yields W = -1/2(kx^2) when the spring stretches from rest to x. This is the negative of the change in its PE. Work is not energy, it causes a change in energy, which might be positive or negative or zero. Net work is change in KE, while non conservative work is change in PE plus change in KE. You can also regard non conservative work as the negative of the change in thermal/other energy.
 
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...
Back
Top