Work, Power, Energy, Efficiency

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of work in physics, specifically questioning why the textbook states the work done is 0 joules. It clarifies that work is defined mathematically as W = Fd, where force (F) and displacement (d) must be in the same direction for work to be done. In the scenario presented, the displacement is effectively 0 because Planet X returns to its starting point, leading to no net work. Additionally, it is emphasized that if there is no force acting in the direction of motion, the work will also be zero. Understanding these principles is crucial for grasping the relationship between work, energy, and efficiency.
danielsmith123123
Messages
26
Reaction score
4
Homework Statement
Calculate the work done by planet X on its moon.
Planet X applies a force of 5.6 x 10^10 N on its moon and the moon is 4.0 x 10^8 km away from the planet and it continues to circle the planet in a circular orbit of circumference of 2.5 x 10^9 m.
Relevant Equations
Gravity
The answer in the textbook says 0J but I am not sure what the concept behind it is. Does it have something to do with gravity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"Gravity" is not an equation. What is the mathematical definition (equation) of work?
 
russ_watters said:
"Gravity" is not an equation. What is the mathematical definition (equation) of work?
W = fd
 
danielsmith123123 said:
W = fd
Great, so can you apply it to this problem?
 
russ_watters said:
Great, so can you apply it to this problem?
W = Fd -------------- W = (5.6 x 10^10 N) (d) Would "d" be 0 because Planet X keeps orbiting the moon and essentially coming back to where it initially started therefore making it's displacement 0?
 
danielsmith123123 said:
W = Fd -------------- W = (5.6 x 10^10 N) (d) Would "d" be 0 because Planet X keeps orbiting the moon and essentially coming back to where it initially started therefore making it's displacement 0?
Yep, that's one way to look at it - the other is along the direction of motion there is no force. Essentially, the force and displacement have to be in the same direction. Since you don't have that, they'll multiply to zero.
 
russ_watters said:
Yep, that's one way to look at it - the other is along the direction of motion there is no force. Essentially, the force and displacement have to be in the same direction. Since you don't have that, they'll multiply to zero.
Ok, thank you so much
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
Back
Top