Work done by gravity - what is wrong?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the work done by gravity on a mass attached to a weightless, rigid rod. The initial approach involved integrating the gravitational force over a path, leading to confusion about the sign of the work. It was clarified that the work done by gravity is independent of the path and is equal to the negative change in potential energy. The correct interpretation shows that the gravitational force and displacement are in the same direction, resulting in positive work. The importance of considering the potential function and the correct path of integration was emphasized.
Zoli
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
I would like the determine the work done by gravity on a mass attached to a rod (see the attached image). The rod is assumed to be weightless and rigid.
I start from the definition of work:
W_{AB} = \int_{\mathbf{r}_A}^{\mathbf{r}_B} \mathbf{G}\cdot \mathrm{d}\,\mathbf{r}.
In the x-y coordinate system we can write
\mathbf{G} = G(0,-1), \quad \mathrm{d}\,\mathbf{r} = R(\sin\varphi,-\cos\varphi)\mathrm{d}\,\varphi,
k4xmpv.png

therefore the value of the integral becomes W_{AB} = GR(\sin\varphi_B - \sin\varphi_A), which is negative since we are in the first quadrant. However, if we look at the attached draft, we may notice that the angle between W_{AB} = \mathbf{G} and \mathrm{d}\,\mathbf{r} is an acute angle, so the work should be positive.
What have I done wrong?

Thank you, Zoli
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You tried it the hard way and in so doing, looks like you integrated backwards. The easier way is to note that the work done by gravity is independent of the path taken, and equal to the negative of the potential energy change. You can calculate the potential energy from basic trig to determine the vertical height change. Since the gravity force and it's vertical displacement are in same direction, work must be positive.
 
  • Like
Likes Zoli
I see it. It should be noticed that dr=-R(sinφ,−cosφ)dφ,becasue from A to B dφ is negative.
 
  • Like
Likes Zoli and Nugatory
PhanthomJay said:
You tried it the hard way and in so doing, looks like you integrated backwards. The easier way is to note that the work done by gravity is independent of the path taken, and equal to the negative of the potential energy change. You can calculate the potential energy from basic trig to determine the vertical height change. Since the gravity force and it's vertical displacement are in same direction, work must be positive.
Yes, I surmised that I changed the path of integration, since \mathrm{d}\,\varphi is negative. I forgot the idea of the potential function. Thank you.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top