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!
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
I know that mass does not affect the acceleration in a simple pendulum undergoing SHM, but how does the mass on the spring that makes up the elastic pendulum affect its acceleration? Certainly, there must be a change due to the displacement from equilibrium caused by each differing mass? I am talking about finding the acceleration at a specific time on each trial with different masses and comparing them. How would they compare and why?
Back
Top