Work on constant-velocity objects

  • Thread starter Thread starter joint52
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Work
AI Thread Summary
Work is defined as the product of force and the distance moved in the direction of that force. When an object moves at constant velocity with no opposing forces, applying a force in the direction of motion does not change the object's velocity. The work done is calculated based on the distance the object travels while the force is applied, not the indefinite distance it continues to move afterward. Therefore, the relevant distance is the distance covered during the application of the force. Understanding this concept is crucial for grasping the principles of work in physics.
joint52
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I'm learning about Work for the first time.

Work = (force) x (distance moved in the direction of the force)

I understand what work is when it comes to lifting objects.

but if you had an object moving at constant velocity with no opposing forces, and apply some force to it in the direction of motion (say 1N), what would be the "work done" given that the object will continue to move after the force is applied.

It will move an indefinite distance so what is the distance in this case?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The distance we use is that which the object traverses while the force is being applied.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces not real just about terminology?'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Why does the main muscle use the most energy in body movements?
Replies
24
Views
2K
I Confusion about the equation KE=1/2mv^2
Replies
7
Views
2K
I Calculating Force Applied to an Object of 100kg Moved 1m in 5s
Replies
12
Views
2K
B Work done in lifting and lowering an object
Replies
34
Views
4K
What is the Definition of the Joule and How Does it Relate to Energy?
Replies
15
Views
2K
B About verification on Kinetic energy and work
Replies
16
Views
2K
B Lifting an Object: Work, Force, and Cosine
Replies
12
Views
3K
Rotational Work versus Linear Work
Replies
14
Views
2K
I Work Done/Energy Transferred in One Dimensional Collision
Replies
5
Views
2K
B Are frictional forces action forces or reaction forces?
Replies
14
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top