Work from the bottom of Unit circle to its top in Polar Coordinates

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the work done by a force as a particle moves along the unit circle in polar coordinates, emphasizing the use of Newton's laws. It highlights the need to integrate the acceleration in polar coordinates to determine work, with specific equations provided for kinetic energy and force components. Participants clarify the relationship between kinetic energy and potential energy, noting that work cannot be equated to zero simply because of the perpendicular nature of the forces involved. The conversation also stresses the importance of correctly defining kinetic energy and potential energy in the context of conservative forces. Overall, the thread provides a detailed exploration of the mathematical relationships necessary for solving the problem.
soopo
Messages
222
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Calculate the work W_{A B} done by the force F using Newton's laws (F=ma, etc), when a particle moves from the point A to the point B along the unit circle. The angle is \theta. No friction. How do you define kinetic energy in polar coordinates?

Homework Equations



Acceleration in polar coordinates is:

\bar{a} = ( \ddot{r} - r ( \dot{ \theta } )^2 ) \hat{r} + ( r \ddot{ \theta } + 2 \dot{ r } \dot{ \theta } ) \hat{ e_{\theta} }

The Attempt at a Solution



I know from cartesian coordinates that PE=KE <=> 1/2 * mv^2 = mg*h. I should verify it in polar coordinates. So integrating \bar{a}*m, with respect to the radius r and the angle \theta, probably give me the energy, like W=F*distance in carteesian coordinates.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The kinetic energy is given by T=\frac{1}{2}mv^2 and in polar coordinates, the velocity is given by

<br /> v(r,\theta)=\frac{dr}{dt}\hat{\mathbf{r}}+r\frac{d\theta}{dt}\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}<br />

(you can check that taking the time-derivative of this does give the acceleration you have) so that takes care of the first part.

For the second part, you will need to integrate m\mathbf{a} over r,\,\theta to get the work:

<br /> \begin{array}{ll}W&amp;=\int \mathbf{F}\cdot d\mathbf{r}<br /> \\ &amp;=\int F_r\,dr+\int F_\theta\,rd\theta<br /> \\ &amp;=\int ma_r\,dr+\int ma_\theta\,rd\theta<br /> \end{array}<br />
 
jdwood983 said:
<br /> \begin{array}{ll}W&amp;=\int \mathbf{F}\cdot d\mathbf{r}<br /> \\ &amp;=\int F_r\,dr+\int F_\theta\,rd\theta<br />

Why do you have r in the last integral?

It seems that you have used the relation
dr = r d\theta
 
soopo said:
Why do you have r in the last integral?

It seems that you have used the relation
dr = r d\theta

It comes from the change of coordinate systems. If anything, the relation should be

<br /> d\mathbf{r}=dr\hat{\mathbf{r}}+rd\theta\hat{\mathbf{\theta}}<br />

And when taking the dot-product with \mathbf{F}(r,\theta), you get the integral relation I gave.
 
jdwood983 said:
The kinetic energy is given by T=\frac{1}{2}mv^2 and in polar coordinates, the velocity is given by
<br /> \begin{array}{ll}W&amp;=\int \mathbf{F}\cdot d\mathbf{r}<br /> \\ &amp;=\int F_r\,dr+\int F_\theta\,rd\theta<br /> \\ &amp;=\int ma_r\,dr+\int ma_\theta\,rd\theta<br /> \end{array}<br />
How do you define KE and PE with respect to a conservative force \bar{D} = - m g \hat{k} ?

Is it just a dot product? So I get the work, and then I can calculate the PE with the new work:

<br /> \begin{array}{ll}W_{ n e w }&amp;=\int \mathbf{D}\cdot d\mathbf{r}<br /> \\ &amp;=0<br /> \end{array}<br />

Zero? I assumed \hat{k} is perdendicular to the plane by \theta and r. So PE is zero with respect to the force \bar{D}.
 
Last edited:
soopo said:
How do you define KE and PE with respect to a conservative force \bar{D} = - m g \hat{k} ?

Is it just a dot product? So I get the work, and then I can calculate the PE with the new work:

<br /> \begin{array}{ll}W_{ n e w }&amp;=\int \mathbf{D}\cdot d\mathbf{r}<br /> \\ &amp;=0<br /> \end{array}<br />

Zero? I assumed \hat{k} is perdendicular to the plane by \theta and r. So PE is zero with respect to the force \bar{D}.

I think you are combining two separate problems into one.

Work is defined as the force over a distance, and neither kinetic energy nor potential energy is a force, so you can't say that W=0 as you did above.

Kinetic energy is defined as the mass times the square of the velocity (really the square of the time derivative of the position). And potential energy is defined as the mass times the relative height times the acceleration due to gravity. Neither of these is work.
 
Your problem asks two questions:
(1) What is the work done by a force moving from point A to B in polar coordinates?
(2) What is the kinetic energy in polar coordinates?

For the first problem,

<br /> W=\int\mathbf{F}\cdot d\mathbf{r}=\int_A^BF_r\,dr+\int_0^{\phi}F_\theta\,rdr<br />

where \phi is the final angle, sweeping from A to B. For the second problem,

<br /> KE=\frac{1}{2}mv^2=\frac{1}{2}m\left(\frac{dr}{dt}\hat{e}_r+r\frac{d\theta}{dt}\hat{e}_\theta}\right)<br />
 
Back
Top