Understanding the Relationship between Work and Power in Accelerating Objects

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between work, power, and acceleration in physics. A 1kg mass accelerated at 1m/s² over 10m requires 10J of work, calculated using the formula for force and work. The confusion arises regarding how time affects power, with clarification that while acceleration is constant, varying the time taken can alter power output. Instantaneous power can differ from average power, especially when acceleration changes, such as accelerating quickly for a short distance and then coasting. Ultimately, the key takeaway is that while force remains constant, velocity changes, impacting power calculations.
TheLaw
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
This isn't homework. I've been thinking.

If I have say a 1kg mass and I want to accelerate it at 1m/s^2 for 10m, I would calculate the work to be done as 10J.

Force = 1kg x 1m/s^2 = 1N
Work = 1N x 10m = 10J

I hope that is correct so far.

But what confuses me is power. Power is work/time, but how could I possibly alter the amount of time it takes for me to accelerate a mass for a certain distance? Wouldn't time be constant?

Is it possible for me to accelerate the mass at 1m/s^2 and then to reach 10m with different amount of times?

Thanks a lot.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, because you're holding the acceleration constant. What you need to do is hold the work done constant, but vary the time taken. For example, you could similarly do 10J of work by pushing it with a force of 0.5N for 20m, which will give you the same final KE, the same work done, but a different time (and thus a different average power).
 
In your setup, where you have the acceleration specified, you can't change the time.

But that is not the main point. The main point is that power, like velocity, can be calculated between two points very close to each other, so you get an instantaneous value.

In your example, the acceleration (and force) is constant, so the instantaneous power is also constant and is equal to the average power.

However, one could equally move the mass with 10 m/s^2 for the first one meter, and then let the mass slide by inertia for the rest of the distance. Average power would then be different, and, more importantly, the instantaneous power during the first meter would be (much) greater than the average power, while the instantaneous power in the second segment would be zero.
 
voko said:
In your example, the acceleration (and force) is constant, so the instantaneous power is also constant and is equal to the average power.

The force is constant, but velocity is not. Power = force multiplied by velocity.
 
jbriggs444 said:
The force is constant, but velocity is not. Power = force multiplied by velocity.

Indeed. Thanks for correcting that.
 
Well thank you very much. That helped a lot.
 
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