Why Does Work Equal Zero When Force Is Perpendicular to Displacement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Perpendicular
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
When force is perpendicular to displacement, the work done is zero because the component of force in the direction of displacement is zero. The formula for work, W = F . D x Cos(theta), indicates that when theta equals 90 degrees, the cosine of 90 is zero, resulting in no work done. The discussion highlights a misunderstanding in using trigonometric functions to relate force and displacement vectors, particularly in constructing triangles incorrectly. The correct approach involves identifying the projection of the force vector along the displacement vector, which is essential for calculating work accurately. Therefore, work equals zero when the force is perpendicular to the displacement vector.
Perpendicular
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Hello, I am almost surely doing something wrong here, but I think it would be better if I drew a diagram to illustrate what I mean.

[PLAIN]http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/5830/workh.png

AB is Force, AC is displacement.

Now I know that work here = Force . Displacement x Cos(theta), by constructing a perpendicular between AB and AC and using sine-cosine functions.

When theta = 90, component of force along displacement equals 0 - this, I don't get, as since I use trigonometry to derive W = F . D x Cos (theta) I think I can do that here like this:

[PLAIN]http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2720/work2i.png

AC = Force, AB = Displacement.

The angle formerly indicated as (theta) now has the sign of a right angle.

Now here, tan(theta) = AB/AC or AC x tan(theta) = AB. Therefore F x tan(theta) = D.

Thus Work = F.D.tan(theta).

Where am I going wrong?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The angle theta is the angle between the displacement vector and the force vector. What you're doing in the second example is changing the meaning of the angle theta.
 
Mr.Miyagi said:
The angle theta is the angle between the displacement vector and the force vector. What you're doing in the second example is changing the meaning of the angle theta.

Lol, I know that. But it's not a crime to rename variables. Call that angle alpha or beta or gamma or what you wish.

I suspect my error lay in using the tan function.
 
What you have drawn in your second diagram is not a perperdicular between AB and AC.
You have (incorrectly) made the angle at A into a right angle.

What actually happens if you drop a perpendicular from AB to AC, you drop it from a useful point on AB, say B.
This meets AC in a new point D, so BD is perp to AC and the angle at D is a right angle.

The distance AD is the component of the force in the direction of the displacement.
the work done is then ADxAC = ABcos(\theta)xAC as required.

AD is also known as the projection of AB on AC.
 
Perpendicular said:
[PLAIN]http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2720/work2i.png

AC = Force, AB = Displacement.

The angle formerly indicated as (theta) now has the sign of a right angle.

Now here, tan(theta) = AB/AC or AC x tan(theta) = AB. Therefore F x tan(theta) = D.
No, the way it would really work is:
tan(θ) = F / (component of F that is parallel to D)​
That means θ should be zero in the 2nd figure.

Thus Work = F.D.tan(theta).
With θ = 0, this is correct.

Where am I going wrong?
In thinking that you can construct a triangle out of the force and displacement vectors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Back
Top