Work Definition: Force x Distance vs. Force x Displacement

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fizziks_Fan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Work
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of work in physics, specifically contrasting the dot product definition involving force and displacement with a more general interpretation that includes distance. Participants explore the implications of these definitions in practical scenarios, such as lifting and lowering weights.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question the definition of work, particularly the distinction between distance and displacement. There is exploration of whether lifting and lowering weights constitutes work when considering net displacement.

Discussion Status

Several interpretations of work are being explored, with some participants providing insights into the nuances of force direction and displacement. There is acknowledgment of the physical effort involved, despite the net work being zero in certain scenarios.

Contextual Notes

Assumptions about the definitions of work and the conditions under which it is performed are being examined. The conversation touches on the subjective experience of effort versus the physical definition of work.

Fizziks_Fan
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi I always thought work was defined as the dot product of the force and displacement vectors.

W = F parallel to D

However, my physics teacher told me that it's force x DISTANCE.

Does that mean that whenever someone lifts a weight and brings it back down is actually doing work? (displacement is zero...) :rolleyes:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I've always known work as W = \vec {F} \cdot \vec {D} or W = |F||D|cos\theta theta being the angle between the force and displacement vectors.

More info on work can be found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work
 
The person does no net work when moving the block up and then back down. As you noted, the displacement is 0. You could also argue that it takes say 100 joules of work to move it up, and -100 joules of work to bring it down. However you slice it, it all adds up to nothing.
 
Distance that you are referring to is the distance moved the DIRECTION of the force. The person did do work: against gravity. When he let's go, it is actually gravity that does work, not him.
 
QuantumCrash said:
Distance that you are referring to is the distance moved the DIRECTION of the force. The person did do work: against gravity. When he let's go, it is actually gravity that does work, not him.
]But if he doesn't let go, and slowly lowers the weight to the floor, he still does work, but the net work he does in both directions is zip.
He might be tired and claim he did a lot of work, but he really didn't do any. Depends on what you mean by "work".
 
Well, if you put it that way yes. His total work against is technically negative since the direction of movement when the net work is 0. Since while he lowers down the weight, the direction of the displacement is opposite that of the force. Hence, work done is actually negative.

Note: The man feels tired because his muscles are actually doing work by continously stretching and compressing. I won't delve further since we are already touching biology.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K