Speed as a ratio, but what about work done and moments?

AI Thread Summary
Speed is defined as the ratio of distance traveled per unit time, while work done is calculated as force multiplied by the distance moved in the direction of that force. The rationale behind this multiplication is rooted in the mathematical relationships established to quantify physical concepts. Understanding that speed is a rate of change over time helps clarify why work is defined as force times distance, as moving an object over greater distances requires more work. The discussion emphasizes the importance of intuitive understanding in grasping these relationships, suggesting that many equations arise from considering linear or inversely linear relationships. Ultimately, recognizing these foundational principles enhances comprehension of physical concepts like work and moments.
rvgene
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

Speed is a ratio of the distance traveled per unit time. But what then is work done and moments?

For example, work done is force multiplied by the distance traveled in the direction of the force. But how would you explain the rationale of multiplying these two quantities?

As in, in the case of speed, the unit is m/s, which makes sense, but something like moments, with units of Nm, it looks as though it does not make much sense.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

There is no mystery here. These are all just useful mathematical relationships people figured out once upon a time. There's nothing special about multiplying or dividing...or squaring, for that matter... to get them.

However: Speed is a rate. An amount of something done per unit time. Any measure of an amount of something done per unit time is divided by time. Whether it's power (J/s), rotational rate (r/m or rpm), or hot dogs eaten per hour on dollar dog day (Hotdogs/h).
 
I am just wondering why work done is force x distance and not, let's say force/distance.

How did the idea of work done being force multiplied by distance come in the first place?
 
rvgene said:
I am just wondering why work done is force x distance and not, let's say force/distance.

How did the idea of work done being force multiplied by distance come in the first place?

If you move an object over twice the distance, it's twice as much work. :smile:
 
I like Serena said:
If you move an object over twice the distance, it's twice as much work. :smile:

ahh... that makes more sense now. same thing for moments right?
 
rvgene said:
ahh... that makes more sense now. same thing for moments right?

Yep! :smile:

Most of these equations (can) come about by thinking about them and considering whether the relationship will be linear or inversely linear. :wink:

Thinking about it that way will also give you an intuitive understanding that IMO is very important!
 
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top