What is the work done on a comet orbiting a star?

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion about the work done on a comet orbiting a star, it is clarified that work is defined as force multiplied by displacement, with the force needing to align with the direction of motion. While a circular orbit results in no work being done due to the perpendicular relationship between force and displacement, a comet's elliptical orbit complicates this. At points A and D, where potential and kinetic energy are at extremes, the work done is indeed zero. However, at other points in the orbit, the gravitational force has a component that aligns with the comet's momentum, indicating that work is done. This understanding highlights the complexities of gravitational interactions in non-circular orbits.
ccarit3007
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
If a comet is orbiting a star is there any work done? I understand that work is force * displacement, but the force must be in the direction of motion. In the case of a comet and star the star exerts a gravitational force on the comet, but this force is not in the direction of the motion of the star (as the motion is circular). Is this the correct logic? For the question in the image shown I understand that potential energy would be greatest at A and kinetic would be greatest at D, but I still am stumped on the work side of things.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-03-05 at 8.51.39 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-03-05 at 8.51.39 PM.png
    44.7 KB · Views: 592
Physics news on Phys.org
You are correct that if the orbit is circular then the force and the displacement are perpendicular, so no work is done. However, a comet's orbit is not circular...
 
phyzguy said:
You are correct that if the orbit is circular then the force and the displacement are perpendicular, so no work is done. However, a comet's orbit is not circular...
Yes, I understand that. So when you are not at point A or point D the force will not be perpendicular to the velocity (and momentum). I'm not sure exactly what this means/where I go from there? I'm guessing that means the work at A & D is 0?
 
ccarit3007 said:
Yes, I understand that. So when you are not at point A or point D the force will not be perpendicular to the velocity (and momentum). I'm not sure exactly what this means/where I go from there? I'm guessing that means the work at A & D is 0?
Ah thinking about this again, the net force which would be directed towards the star would have a component that is in the direction of the momentum. Is this correct?
 
ccarit3007 said:
Ah thinking about this again, the net force which would be directed towards the star would have a component that is in the direction of the momentum. Is this correct?

It would have a component of the force directed in the direction of motion, yes.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Expressing Elliptic Orbitals As Speed Functions.
Replies
2
Views
1K
I What causes Kuiper/Ort cloud objects to become comets?
Replies
5
Views
2K
D'Alembert's principle and the work done by constraint forces
Replies
6
Views
3K
B About verification on Kinetic energy and work
Replies
16
Views
2K
Why the work done is coming out to be positive?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Unraveling the Mystery of Work Done & Energy Transfer
Replies
20
Views
2K
Work done on a moving square wire loop in a B-field
Replies
9
Views
906
Comet orbiting a Star - True and False
Replies
6
Views
4K
B What is the need for the concepts of Work and Energy (KE)?
Replies
8
Views
1K
Who Does the Work When a Ball is Kicked: The Player or the Ball?
Replies
8
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top