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

In summary, the work done by a force moving from point A to B in polar coordinates is given by W=\int_A^BF_r\,dr+\int_0^{\phi}F_\theta\,rdr, and the kinetic energy in polar coordinates is given by KE=\frac{1}{2}m\left(\frac{dr}{dt}\hat{e}_r+r\frac{d\theta}{dt}\hat{e}_\theta}\right) ^2. These are separate problems and cannot be combined as they have different definitions and equations.
  • #1
soopo
225
0

Homework Statement



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

Homework Equations



Acceleration in polar coordinates is:

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

The Attempt at a Solution



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

[tex]
v(r,\theta)=\frac{dr}{dt}\hat{\mathbf{r}}+r\frac{d\theta}{dt}\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}
[/tex]

(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 [tex]m\mathbf{a}[/tex] over [tex]r,\,\theta[/tex] to get the work:

[tex]
\begin{array}{ll}W&=\int \mathbf{F}\cdot d\mathbf{r}
\\ &=\int F_r\,dr+\int F_\theta\,rd\theta
\\ &=\int ma_r\,dr+\int ma_\theta\,rd\theta
\end{array}
[/tex]
 
  • #3
jdwood983 said:
[tex]
\begin{array}{ll}W&=\int \mathbf{F}\cdot d\mathbf{r}
\\ &=\int F_r\,dr+\int F_\theta\,rd\theta
[/tex]

Why do you have [tex] r [/tex] in the last integral?

It seems that you have used the relation
[tex] dr = r d\theta [/tex]
 
  • #4
soopo said:
Why do you have [tex] r [/tex] in the last integral?

It seems that you have used the relation
[tex] dr = r d\theta [/tex]

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

[tex]
d\mathbf{r}=dr\hat{\mathbf{r}}+rd\theta\hat{\mathbf{\theta}}
[/tex]

And when taking the dot-product with [tex]\mathbf{F}(r,\theta)[/tex], you get the integral relation I gave.
 
  • #5
jdwood983 said:
The kinetic energy is given by [tex] T=\frac{1}{2}mv^2[/tex] and in polar coordinates, the velocity is given by
[tex]
\begin{array}{ll}W&=\int \mathbf{F}\cdot d\mathbf{r}
\\ &=\int F_r\,dr+\int F_\theta\,rd\theta
\\ &=\int ma_r\,dr+\int ma_\theta\,rd\theta
\end{array}
[/tex]
How do you define [tex]KE[/tex] and [tex]PE[/tex] with respect to a conservative force [tex] \bar{D} = - m g \hat{k}[/tex] ?

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

[tex]
\begin{array}{ll}W_{ n e w }&=\int \mathbf{D}\cdot d\mathbf{r}
\\ &=0
\end{array}
[/tex]

Zero? I assumed [tex] \hat{k} [/tex] is perdendicular to the plane by [tex] \theta [/tex] and [tex] r [/tex]. So [tex] PE [/tex] is zero with respect to the force [tex] \bar{D} [/tex].
 
Last edited:
  • #6
soopo said:
How do you define [tex]KE[/tex] and [tex]PE[/tex] with respect to a conservative force [tex] \bar{D} = - m g \hat{k}[/tex] ?

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

[tex]
\begin{array}{ll}W_{ n e w }&=\int \mathbf{D}\cdot d\mathbf{r}
\\ &=0
\end{array}
[/tex]

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

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.
 
  • #7
Your problem asks two questions:
(1) What is the work done by a force moving from point [tex]A[/tex] to [tex]B[/tex] in polar coordinates?
(2) What is the kinetic energy in polar coordinates?

For the first problem,

[tex]
W=\int\mathbf{F}\cdot d\mathbf{r}=\int_A^BF_r\,dr+\int_0^{\phi}F_\theta\,rdr
[/tex]

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

[tex]
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)
[/tex]
 

1. What is the unit circle in polar coordinates?

The unit circle in polar coordinates is a circle with a radius of 1 unit, centered at the origin (0,0) in the polar coordinate system. It is used to represent points in the Cartesian coordinate system using polar coordinates.

2. How do you work from the bottom of the unit circle to its top in polar coordinates?

To work from the bottom of the unit circle to its top in polar coordinates, you would start at the angle of 0 degrees, also known as the positive x-axis. Then, you would move in a counterclockwise direction until you reach the angle of 180 degrees, which is the top of the unit circle.

3. What are the advantages of using polar coordinates to represent points on the unit circle?

One advantage of using polar coordinates on the unit circle is that it simplifies calculations involving angles and trigonometric functions. It also allows for a more intuitive visualization of points on the circle compared to Cartesian coordinates.

4. Can you convert between Cartesian and polar coordinates on the unit circle?

Yes, it is possible to convert between Cartesian and polar coordinates on the unit circle. To convert from Cartesian coordinates (x,y) to polar coordinates (r,θ), you can use the equations r = √(x^2 + y^2) and θ = tan^-1 (y/x). To convert from polar coordinates to Cartesian coordinates, you can use the equations x = rcos(θ) and y = rsin(θ).

5. How are polar coordinates used in real-world applications?

Polar coordinates are commonly used in physics, engineering, and navigation to describe circular or rotational motion. They are also used in mapping and surveying to represent locations on a map or the Earth's surface. Additionally, polar coordinates are used in complex analysis, where they simplify the representation of complex numbers and functions.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
220
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
249
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
577
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
869
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
830
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
203
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
728
Replies
8
Views
980
Back
Top