Silly question, derivation of energy

  • Thread starter Thread starter tuoni
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation Energy
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around confusion regarding the derivation of equations related to acceleration and energy in physics. The original poster struggles with the proper definitions and relationships between variables, particularly the distinction between displacement and time. Clarifications are provided on the correct use of equations for kinetic energy and acceleration, emphasizing the importance of dimensional analysis and the need for accurate variable definitions. The conversation highlights the significance of understanding the derivation process for better comprehension of algorithms in physics. Overall, the need for a solid grasp of foundational concepts in physics is underscored.
tuoni
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Here's a silly question I ended up thinking about. Maybe I learned it in college, but it's long forgotten by now ^~^; It might be quite a silly question, something I shouldn't have forgotten so easily, but alas, here I am, I've gotten so accustomed to simply using the algorithms without much thought. What a bad thing to happen T_T

Where did the "divided by 2" go?

{\color{red} a := \frac{m}{s^{2}} := \frac{m^{2}}{s^{2}m} := \frac{ \left( \frac{m^{2}}{s^{2}} \right) }{m} := \frac{ \left( \frac{m}{s} \right) \left( \frac{m}{s} \right) }{m}} \;\; \Rightarrow \;\; a = \frac{v^{2}}{s}

E = \frac{mv^{2}}{2}

E = Fs = mas = m \frac{v^{2}}{s} s = \frac{mv^{2}s}{s} = mv^{2}


a := acceleration
E := energy
F := force
m := mass
m := metre[/color]
s := space
s := second[/color]
v := velocity

Is my mind deteriorating, or why am I unable to see what is wrong? o_O
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're mixing up ( red ) s as seconds with ( black) s as displacement. See definition of Joule ( energy ) and Newton ( force ). In fact, some of your definitions are quite reckless. Get rid of m = metre. Prefer s = displacement. Get rid of s = second. Prefer t = time.
 
Last edited:
In your finding an equation for accleration, you used dimensional analysis. Using that doesn't give you the value of constants, so it not safe to assume that the constant is always 1.

Your equation for acceleration should have been a=\frac{kv^2}{s}

But I see that you were deriving the formula for kinetic energy.
There are two ways to do it, with a constant force or variable force.

For constant force.

E=Fs=mas

now use v^2=u^2+2as

If you wanted to use calculus (for a variable force)

E= \int F ds= \int (ma) ds

and a=\frac{dv}{dt} (So use the chain rule to get 'a' in terms of d(something)/ds)
 
tuoni said:
{\color{red} a := \frac{m}{s^{2}} := \frac{m^{2}}{s^{2}m} := \frac{ \left( \frac{m^{2}}{s^{2}} \right) }{m} := \frac{ \left( \frac{m}{s} \right) \left( \frac{m}{s} \right) }{m}} \;\; \Rightarrow \;\; a = \frac{v^{2}}{s}
All this demonstrates is that v^2/s has the same units as acceleration. For an object uniformly accelerated from rest, a = v^2/2s where v is the final speed. (Derive this from the definition of acceleration and average velocity.)
 
I haven't really done much derivation in my life, so yes, never expected to get it right the first time. Demonstrating that the units are the same was probably not the best idea either. However, thank you for the help ^_^

I'm also using a algorithms/equations book from college, so I never realized to look elsewhere. A few things I haven't seen before. I took all the physics classes in college, either I have forgotten quite a bit, or there were some very important parts left out.

I am working on ballistic algorithms, so that is why I've suddenly began with derivation. It makes it a lot easier for users to understand the algorithms if they see how it's derived, rather than just in-your-face.
 
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...

Similar threads

Replies
59
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
786
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
778
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top