Understanding derivation of kinetic energy from impulse?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between impulse, momentum, and kinetic energy. It highlights that the area under a force-time plot represents impulse, which is equivalent to the change in momentum. The key confusion arises from integrating with respect to velocity instead of time to derive kinetic energy. The explanation clarifies that by manipulating the equations, one can understand that work done is related to kinetic energy through integration in the velocity domain. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the importance of conceptual clarity in transitioning from time to velocity for calculating kinetic energy.
richsmith
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I have a question that annoys my basic understanding of kinetic energy.

I know if I have a force-time plot then the area under the curve is equivalent to the impulse imparted on an object (in units Newton-Seconds). I know that this is also equivalent to the change in momentum of the object i.e. Ft = delta mV

I know that i can get these values from the plot by simply intgrating the Force function wrt to time. Now I want to determine the kinetic energy involved in this event. I know that k.e. = 1/2mV^2 so I know that is simply the integral of the impulse w.r.t. to velocity

Now that is the part conceptually I don't really grasp. What does it really mean to integrate with respect to velocity? This means I am suddenly on a velocity :rolleyes: domain, not time, and I don't really understand this?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
While impulse is ∫Fdt, work is ∫Fdx. Since force can be viewed as the rate of change of momentum, you have F = dp/dt = m dv/dt. Thus:
W = ∫Fdx = ∫m (dv/dt) * dx = m∫dv*(dx/dt) = m∫v dv = ½mv² (which is kinetic energy).

Make sense?
 
After some head scratching yes it does, finaly.

I think my mistake has always been trying to integrate wrt time. I really had to step back and ask myself what i was after, work that is, which is not a time integral.

Manipulating dv/dt to dx/dt and then subbing in V now makes it algebraicly understandable.

Thanks alot.

Richard.
 
I have a question that annoys my basic understanding of kinetic energy.

Similar to questions which annoys my basic understanding of electrostatics?

Why not just calculate the final velocity of the body and then calculate the K.E.

Take as a caveat that the momentum of a body might not be directly proportional to K.E possesed by it.
 
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