Calculating Work Done by a 2-D Force

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the work done by a 2-D force represented by the equation ((1 N/m)x) + (4 N). The participant initially miscalculated the work as 35J and sought clarification on the correct approach. It was explained that the work done can be determined using the integral of the force along the displacement path, highlighting the importance of the dot product between force and displacement. The correct calculations for work done in the x and y directions yielded a total work of -18J. The conversation emphasizes understanding the integration process and the significance of conservative forces in determining work.
jl9999
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
"Work Done by 2-D Force"
What work is done by a force = ((1 N/m)x) + (4 N), with x in meters, that moves a particle from a position 1 = (2 m) + (3 m) to a position 2 = - (4 m) - (3 m)?

I figured all I would have to do is find the displacement of the x and y coordinates after the force had acted on them and then multiply the displacement vectors by their corresponding x and y force vectors, then use some trig to get the total work done. The answer I came up with was 35J, which of course was wrong. What am I missing? any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The x-component has to be integrated, since force isn't a constant.

The exact formula for work done in higher dimensions along some curve is this.

W = \int_{r_0}^{r_1}F(r) \cdot dl

Note the scalar product between the force and displacement along curve.

Is this notation something you can make sense of, or do you need help breaking it down into geometric terms?
 
Yeah, I can't make complete sense of the notation. I'm guessing it's something about an integral and a dot product but I might need a little extra push. thanks
 
Well, in the problem you posted, the first simplification is noting that force is conservative. (You might want to look that up if you don't know how I know this.) That means that the work is the same regardless of the path taken. So let us move in just the X direction first, and then in just the Y direction.

The dot product means that we are only interested in force component along displacement. Since we are going to move along x first, only Fx is of interest. The integral becomes.

W_x = \int_{x_1}^{x_2} F_x(x, y) dx = \int_{2m}^{-4m} 1\frac{N}{m} x dx = \frac{1}{2}\frac{N}{m}\left((-4m)^2 - (2m)^2\right) = 6 Nm = 6J

Note that if Fx actually depended on y, you'd have to use y1, since no displacement in y took place yet. In contrast, on the second step, when moving in y direction, you'd be keeping x=x2. Of course, you could have started with y first, but again, in this case, it does not matter. And second step, similarly.

W_y = \int_{y_1}^{y_2} F_y(x, y) dy = \int_{3m}^{-3m} 4N dy = 4N\left((-3m) - 3m\right) = -24Nm = -24J

The total work is just the sum of the two, W = -18J.

I don't know how much you know about the integration, but it's basically area under the curve. If the curve goes negative, these regions are counted as negative area. Similarly, integrating from right to left gives the same answer as from left to right, but with a minus sign. Sketching Fx as function of x and Fy as function of y, and looking at the areas from x1 to x2 and from y1 to y2 respectively, should tell you where the integration results come from.
 
Now that I look at it again with your explanation in my mind it seems very easy. Anyway, thanks for your help and the quick tutorial.
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top