Work=Force*Stretch: Why is this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johann1301
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The equation Work = Force * Stretch (or displacement) is fundamental because it reflects the direct relationship between force applied and the distance moved in that direction. This simplicity arises from the definition of work as a measure of energy transfer in a system, which does not allow for more complex relationships involving powers or fractions. While forces can vary during stretching, the basic principle holds true when force remains constant. The equation's straightforward nature aids in understanding and calculating work efficiently. Ultimately, this simplicity is beneficial for practical applications in physics.
johann1301
Messages
216
Reaction score
1
I am- and have always been a bit puzzled as to why Work=Force*Stretch. I guess it makes sense that both stretch and force is involved, but why such a simple equation? Why Isn't it for example;

W=0,25F*S^2

or..

W=(F^S)/2

or some other equation?

How did we figure out that Work=Force*Stretch?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i believe you want to know why work is force*displacement(stretch as you called it), right?...

Here's the deal, you cannot have another equation of work with powers greater than one or less than it for force or the displacement...why?...because work isn't something that you see in nature, as it is with distance,

Work is a concept invented by physicists to understand whether a system is efficient enough...it has been defined that way, F*S, no other way is possible...the equations you mentioned ...they could mean something ...but certainly not work...just like you being happy means having a smile and stuff ...Why isn't being happy associated with having a frown...same logic here...cause it is defined as having a smile...
 
johann1301 said:
I am- and have always been a bit puzzled as to why Work=Force*Stretch. I guess it makes sense that both stretch and force is involved, but why such a simple equation? Why Isn't it for example;

W=0,25F*S^2

or..

W=(F^S)/2

or some other equation?

How did we figure out that Work=Force*Stretch?

Actually, it very often isn't as simple as force times stretch because the force tends to change as you stretch things. It is, however, force times distance moved (in the direction of the force) as long as the force doesn't change.

Why is it such a simple formula? Well, consider a (zero weight) lever and assume there is no friction. The work you do in moving the long bit must be equal to the work done on the heavy weight on the short bit. If there is no extra energy put in or lost then this must be true. It always turns out that the force times the distance moved is the same value whatever the lengths on each side of the lever. This quantity that is always equal to force times distance is the work done.
Also, consider the energy involved in lifting a block. Lifting it twice as far would, reasonably, take twice as much energy. Lifting two blocks would also take twice as much energy.
Need I go on? Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. You would really be moaning if it were a more difficult formula to remember. :wink:
 
Last edited:
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...
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?
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...
Back
Top