Newton's laws vs energy for solving a problem











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I have a problem I solved using kinematics/Newton's 2nd law.




It gives the mass of a walker as 55kg. It then says she starts from rest and walks 20m is 7s. It wants to know the horizontal force acting on her.




From kinematics for constant acceleration, I know $vec{r}=frac{a}{2}t^2hat{i}$. Plugging in the known time and the known distance I solved for the acceleration and then I could get the force by multiplying the acceleration by the walker's mass. So I got the problem right... but then I got to wondering: Was there a way to do this problem using energy? I have in mind $vec{F}cdotDeltavec{r}=Delta K$. I tried but I don't know the final velocity (from the given information).










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    This problem is extremely unclear (not your fault). What is a walker? Is it a person or a thing? Is there friction? If we're talking about a human walking, then that sounds like common-core, because the kinesiology of walking is not amenable to simple analysis, which is why physics problems general discuss masses on frictionless surfaces.
    – JEB
    yesterday






  • 1




    When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
    – G. Smith
    yesterday












  • @JEB please take the force of static friction of ground on walker to be the only relevant force; and treat the walker as a point mass.
    – okcapp
    yesterday















up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I have a problem I solved using kinematics/Newton's 2nd law.




It gives the mass of a walker as 55kg. It then says she starts from rest and walks 20m is 7s. It wants to know the horizontal force acting on her.




From kinematics for constant acceleration, I know $vec{r}=frac{a}{2}t^2hat{i}$. Plugging in the known time and the known distance I solved for the acceleration and then I could get the force by multiplying the acceleration by the walker's mass. So I got the problem right... but then I got to wondering: Was there a way to do this problem using energy? I have in mind $vec{F}cdotDeltavec{r}=Delta K$. I tried but I don't know the final velocity (from the given information).










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    This problem is extremely unclear (not your fault). What is a walker? Is it a person or a thing? Is there friction? If we're talking about a human walking, then that sounds like common-core, because the kinesiology of walking is not amenable to simple analysis, which is why physics problems general discuss masses on frictionless surfaces.
    – JEB
    yesterday






  • 1




    When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
    – G. Smith
    yesterday












  • @JEB please take the force of static friction of ground on walker to be the only relevant force; and treat the walker as a point mass.
    – okcapp
    yesterday













up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











I have a problem I solved using kinematics/Newton's 2nd law.




It gives the mass of a walker as 55kg. It then says she starts from rest and walks 20m is 7s. It wants to know the horizontal force acting on her.




From kinematics for constant acceleration, I know $vec{r}=frac{a}{2}t^2hat{i}$. Plugging in the known time and the known distance I solved for the acceleration and then I could get the force by multiplying the acceleration by the walker's mass. So I got the problem right... but then I got to wondering: Was there a way to do this problem using energy? I have in mind $vec{F}cdotDeltavec{r}=Delta K$. I tried but I don't know the final velocity (from the given information).










share|cite|improve this question















I have a problem I solved using kinematics/Newton's 2nd law.




It gives the mass of a walker as 55kg. It then says she starts from rest and walks 20m is 7s. It wants to know the horizontal force acting on her.




From kinematics for constant acceleration, I know $vec{r}=frac{a}{2}t^2hat{i}$. Plugging in the known time and the known distance I solved for the acceleration and then I could get the force by multiplying the acceleration by the walker's mass. So I got the problem right... but then I got to wondering: Was there a way to do this problem using energy? I have in mind $vec{F}cdotDeltavec{r}=Delta K$. I tried but I don't know the final velocity (from the given information).







homework-and-exercises newtonian-mechanics energy work






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 20 hours ago

























asked yesterday









okcapp

284




284








  • 1




    This problem is extremely unclear (not your fault). What is a walker? Is it a person or a thing? Is there friction? If we're talking about a human walking, then that sounds like common-core, because the kinesiology of walking is not amenable to simple analysis, which is why physics problems general discuss masses on frictionless surfaces.
    – JEB
    yesterday






  • 1




    When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
    – G. Smith
    yesterday












  • @JEB please take the force of static friction of ground on walker to be the only relevant force; and treat the walker as a point mass.
    – okcapp
    yesterday














  • 1




    This problem is extremely unclear (not your fault). What is a walker? Is it a person or a thing? Is there friction? If we're talking about a human walking, then that sounds like common-core, because the kinesiology of walking is not amenable to simple analysis, which is why physics problems general discuss masses on frictionless surfaces.
    – JEB
    yesterday






  • 1




    When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
    – G. Smith
    yesterday












  • @JEB please take the force of static friction of ground on walker to be the only relevant force; and treat the walker as a point mass.
    – okcapp
    yesterday








1




1




This problem is extremely unclear (not your fault). What is a walker? Is it a person or a thing? Is there friction? If we're talking about a human walking, then that sounds like common-core, because the kinesiology of walking is not amenable to simple analysis, which is why physics problems general discuss masses on frictionless surfaces.
– JEB
yesterday




This problem is extremely unclear (not your fault). What is a walker? Is it a person or a thing? Is there friction? If we're talking about a human walking, then that sounds like common-core, because the kinesiology of walking is not amenable to simple analysis, which is why physics problems general discuss masses on frictionless surfaces.
– JEB
yesterday




1




1




When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
– G. Smith
yesterday






When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
– G. Smith
yesterday














@JEB please take the force of static friction of ground on walker to be the only relevant force; and treat the walker as a point mass.
– okcapp
yesterday




@JEB please take the force of static friction of ground on walker to be the only relevant force; and treat the walker as a point mass.
– okcapp
yesterday










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote













OK, so a female point mass $m$ accelerates from $v=0$ at constant acceleration and covers distance $r$ in time $t$, so using:



$$ d = frac 1 2 a t^2 $$



we get



$$ a = 2d/t^2 $$



so that:



$$ F = ma = 2md/t^2 $$.



The question is, can this problem be solved using energy? Let's try:



We have to tilt it and use an equivalent gravitational field $a$, in which an at rest mass falls $d$ in time $t$, which mean the potential energy:



$$ U = mad $$



is converted into kinetic energy:



$$ K = ? $$.



Now what? Well, we know the average velocity is:



$$ bar v = d/t $$



and we know the final velocity is twice the average velocity, so:



$$ v = 2bar v = 2d/t $$



so that the kinetic energy is:



$$ K = frac 1 2 m v^2 = 2md^2/t^2 $$



an of course:



$$ K = U $$



so that:



$$ 2md^2/t^2 = mad $$



or:



$$ a = 2d/t^2 $$



Now at this point we could use $F=ma$ and get the right answer, but we're not using Newton's Laws. We're going to use:



$$ F = frac{partial U}{partial d} $$



so plugging $a$ in to the expression for $U$:



$$ U = mad = m(2d/t^2)d = 2md^2/t^2 $$



so



$$ partial U/partial d = 2md/t^2 = F $$



which is correct. So the answer to your question is "yes", you can use energy.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Using the work-kinetic energy theorem like you stated is a good start. As you said, that method requires knowing the final velocity. So, just use the basic kinematic relation,



    $$ v_{f}^{2} = v_{i}^{2} + 2aDelta x = 2aDelta x$$



    where $Delta x$ is the displacement which is given in the problem statement. I think it's kinda straight forward from here:



    $$ W = Delta K $$



    $$ F Delta x = frac{1}{2}m v_{f}^{2} = frac{1}{2}m (2a Delta x) = ma Delta x$$



    $$ F = ma $$



    So indeed, Newton's second law is recovered, and you would just use the relation that you provided to find the acceleration. In this problem, using energy involves a bit more work than what you did originally, but it's still a workable path :)






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • I'm a little confused by this. Your kinematic equation is exactly the same as your second equation, so you've somehow used the same equation twice to recover Newton's second law. I"m not sure what exactly you did. There is a typo in the last equation, by the way.
      – garyp
      yesterday










    • Thank you for pointing out the typo, it's been fixed. And to clarify, I agree that the kinematic equation I provided can be algebraically manipulated into the work-kinetic energy theorem, but if you want to use energy to solve the OP's problem then you need the final velocity, and if you want to use the work-kinetic energy theorem then it's a rather circular method of solving. One can instead use an artificial potential energy as JEB did in his solution, but I just wanted to point out the circularity of the OP's supposition.
      – N. Steinle
      yesterday


















    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Assuming constant acceleration from rest the velocity against time graph looks like this:



    enter image description here



    Knowing the displacement $s$, which is the area under the graph, and the time $t$ one can link these two quantities either to the acceleration $a$ using $s = frac 12 ,at,t = frac 12at^2$ (compare with the constant acceleration kinematic equation $s = ut + frac 12 at^2$ with the initial velocity $u = 0$) or the final velocity $v$ using $s = frac12 ,v,t$ (compare with the constant acceleration kinematic equation $s = frac 12 frac{(u+v)}{t}$ with the initial velocity $u=0$).



    One can then use either Newton's second law $F = ma$ or the work-energy theorem $Fs = frac 12 m v^2$ to find the force $F$.






    share|cite|improve this answer






























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      So from energy conservation $F.s = mv^2/2$ ;$F.s=ma^2t^2/2$ ; $ F.s=frac{ 2m(at^2/2)^2}{t^2}$ ;F.s=$ frac{2m times (at^2/2)^2}{t^2}= 2ms^2/t^2$ ; note that $v = at$ and $s=at^2/2$ s= displacement v= velocity. I get the force as $F= 2 times m times s/t^2$ so i conclude the result can be also obtained by energy conservation.






      share|cite|improve this answer






























        up vote
        0
        down vote













        It occurred to me that since $vec{v}=athat{i}$, it is clear that $v_{final}=2v_{average}$. Well, since $v_{average}=frac{|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}$, we know that $v_{final}=2v_{average}=frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}$. This means that
        $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=Delta K=frac{1}{2}mv_{final}^2$$
        can be solved for $|vec{F}|$ using the known mass, the known distance, and $vec{v}_{final}=frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}$:
        $$|vec{F}|=biggl(frac{1}{|Deltavec{x}|}biggr)biggl(frac{1}{2}biggr)mbiggl(frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}biggr)^2$$
        Note that $vec{F}$ and $Delta vec{x}$ both only have components in the positive $hat{i}$ direction, so I took for granted that: $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$






        share|cite|improve this answer























          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "151"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f442863%2fnewtons-laws-vs-energy-for-solving-a-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes








          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          2
          down vote













          OK, so a female point mass $m$ accelerates from $v=0$ at constant acceleration and covers distance $r$ in time $t$, so using:



          $$ d = frac 1 2 a t^2 $$



          we get



          $$ a = 2d/t^2 $$



          so that:



          $$ F = ma = 2md/t^2 $$.



          The question is, can this problem be solved using energy? Let's try:



          We have to tilt it and use an equivalent gravitational field $a$, in which an at rest mass falls $d$ in time $t$, which mean the potential energy:



          $$ U = mad $$



          is converted into kinetic energy:



          $$ K = ? $$.



          Now what? Well, we know the average velocity is:



          $$ bar v = d/t $$



          and we know the final velocity is twice the average velocity, so:



          $$ v = 2bar v = 2d/t $$



          so that the kinetic energy is:



          $$ K = frac 1 2 m v^2 = 2md^2/t^2 $$



          an of course:



          $$ K = U $$



          so that:



          $$ 2md^2/t^2 = mad $$



          or:



          $$ a = 2d/t^2 $$



          Now at this point we could use $F=ma$ and get the right answer, but we're not using Newton's Laws. We're going to use:



          $$ F = frac{partial U}{partial d} $$



          so plugging $a$ in to the expression for $U$:



          $$ U = mad = m(2d/t^2)d = 2md^2/t^2 $$



          so



          $$ partial U/partial d = 2md/t^2 = F $$



          which is correct. So the answer to your question is "yes", you can use energy.






          share|cite|improve this answer

























            up vote
            2
            down vote













            OK, so a female point mass $m$ accelerates from $v=0$ at constant acceleration and covers distance $r$ in time $t$, so using:



            $$ d = frac 1 2 a t^2 $$



            we get



            $$ a = 2d/t^2 $$



            so that:



            $$ F = ma = 2md/t^2 $$.



            The question is, can this problem be solved using energy? Let's try:



            We have to tilt it and use an equivalent gravitational field $a$, in which an at rest mass falls $d$ in time $t$, which mean the potential energy:



            $$ U = mad $$



            is converted into kinetic energy:



            $$ K = ? $$.



            Now what? Well, we know the average velocity is:



            $$ bar v = d/t $$



            and we know the final velocity is twice the average velocity, so:



            $$ v = 2bar v = 2d/t $$



            so that the kinetic energy is:



            $$ K = frac 1 2 m v^2 = 2md^2/t^2 $$



            an of course:



            $$ K = U $$



            so that:



            $$ 2md^2/t^2 = mad $$



            or:



            $$ a = 2d/t^2 $$



            Now at this point we could use $F=ma$ and get the right answer, but we're not using Newton's Laws. We're going to use:



            $$ F = frac{partial U}{partial d} $$



            so plugging $a$ in to the expression for $U$:



            $$ U = mad = m(2d/t^2)d = 2md^2/t^2 $$



            so



            $$ partial U/partial d = 2md/t^2 = F $$



            which is correct. So the answer to your question is "yes", you can use energy.






            share|cite|improve this answer























              up vote
              2
              down vote










              up vote
              2
              down vote









              OK, so a female point mass $m$ accelerates from $v=0$ at constant acceleration and covers distance $r$ in time $t$, so using:



              $$ d = frac 1 2 a t^2 $$



              we get



              $$ a = 2d/t^2 $$



              so that:



              $$ F = ma = 2md/t^2 $$.



              The question is, can this problem be solved using energy? Let's try:



              We have to tilt it and use an equivalent gravitational field $a$, in which an at rest mass falls $d$ in time $t$, which mean the potential energy:



              $$ U = mad $$



              is converted into kinetic energy:



              $$ K = ? $$.



              Now what? Well, we know the average velocity is:



              $$ bar v = d/t $$



              and we know the final velocity is twice the average velocity, so:



              $$ v = 2bar v = 2d/t $$



              so that the kinetic energy is:



              $$ K = frac 1 2 m v^2 = 2md^2/t^2 $$



              an of course:



              $$ K = U $$



              so that:



              $$ 2md^2/t^2 = mad $$



              or:



              $$ a = 2d/t^2 $$



              Now at this point we could use $F=ma$ and get the right answer, but we're not using Newton's Laws. We're going to use:



              $$ F = frac{partial U}{partial d} $$



              so plugging $a$ in to the expression for $U$:



              $$ U = mad = m(2d/t^2)d = 2md^2/t^2 $$



              so



              $$ partial U/partial d = 2md/t^2 = F $$



              which is correct. So the answer to your question is "yes", you can use energy.






              share|cite|improve this answer












              OK, so a female point mass $m$ accelerates from $v=0$ at constant acceleration and covers distance $r$ in time $t$, so using:



              $$ d = frac 1 2 a t^2 $$



              we get



              $$ a = 2d/t^2 $$



              so that:



              $$ F = ma = 2md/t^2 $$.



              The question is, can this problem be solved using energy? Let's try:



              We have to tilt it and use an equivalent gravitational field $a$, in which an at rest mass falls $d$ in time $t$, which mean the potential energy:



              $$ U = mad $$



              is converted into kinetic energy:



              $$ K = ? $$.



              Now what? Well, we know the average velocity is:



              $$ bar v = d/t $$



              and we know the final velocity is twice the average velocity, so:



              $$ v = 2bar v = 2d/t $$



              so that the kinetic energy is:



              $$ K = frac 1 2 m v^2 = 2md^2/t^2 $$



              an of course:



              $$ K = U $$



              so that:



              $$ 2md^2/t^2 = mad $$



              or:



              $$ a = 2d/t^2 $$



              Now at this point we could use $F=ma$ and get the right answer, but we're not using Newton's Laws. We're going to use:



              $$ F = frac{partial U}{partial d} $$



              so plugging $a$ in to the expression for $U$:



              $$ U = mad = m(2d/t^2)d = 2md^2/t^2 $$



              so



              $$ partial U/partial d = 2md/t^2 = F $$



              which is correct. So the answer to your question is "yes", you can use energy.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered yesterday









              JEB

              5,3721717




              5,3721717






















                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote













                  Using the work-kinetic energy theorem like you stated is a good start. As you said, that method requires knowing the final velocity. So, just use the basic kinematic relation,



                  $$ v_{f}^{2} = v_{i}^{2} + 2aDelta x = 2aDelta x$$



                  where $Delta x$ is the displacement which is given in the problem statement. I think it's kinda straight forward from here:



                  $$ W = Delta K $$



                  $$ F Delta x = frac{1}{2}m v_{f}^{2} = frac{1}{2}m (2a Delta x) = ma Delta x$$



                  $$ F = ma $$



                  So indeed, Newton's second law is recovered, and you would just use the relation that you provided to find the acceleration. In this problem, using energy involves a bit more work than what you did originally, but it's still a workable path :)






                  share|cite|improve this answer























                  • I'm a little confused by this. Your kinematic equation is exactly the same as your second equation, so you've somehow used the same equation twice to recover Newton's second law. I"m not sure what exactly you did. There is a typo in the last equation, by the way.
                    – garyp
                    yesterday










                  • Thank you for pointing out the typo, it's been fixed. And to clarify, I agree that the kinematic equation I provided can be algebraically manipulated into the work-kinetic energy theorem, but if you want to use energy to solve the OP's problem then you need the final velocity, and if you want to use the work-kinetic energy theorem then it's a rather circular method of solving. One can instead use an artificial potential energy as JEB did in his solution, but I just wanted to point out the circularity of the OP's supposition.
                    – N. Steinle
                    yesterday















                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote













                  Using the work-kinetic energy theorem like you stated is a good start. As you said, that method requires knowing the final velocity. So, just use the basic kinematic relation,



                  $$ v_{f}^{2} = v_{i}^{2} + 2aDelta x = 2aDelta x$$



                  where $Delta x$ is the displacement which is given in the problem statement. I think it's kinda straight forward from here:



                  $$ W = Delta K $$



                  $$ F Delta x = frac{1}{2}m v_{f}^{2} = frac{1}{2}m (2a Delta x) = ma Delta x$$



                  $$ F = ma $$



                  So indeed, Newton's second law is recovered, and you would just use the relation that you provided to find the acceleration. In this problem, using energy involves a bit more work than what you did originally, but it's still a workable path :)






                  share|cite|improve this answer























                  • I'm a little confused by this. Your kinematic equation is exactly the same as your second equation, so you've somehow used the same equation twice to recover Newton's second law. I"m not sure what exactly you did. There is a typo in the last equation, by the way.
                    – garyp
                    yesterday










                  • Thank you for pointing out the typo, it's been fixed. And to clarify, I agree that the kinematic equation I provided can be algebraically manipulated into the work-kinetic energy theorem, but if you want to use energy to solve the OP's problem then you need the final velocity, and if you want to use the work-kinetic energy theorem then it's a rather circular method of solving. One can instead use an artificial potential energy as JEB did in his solution, but I just wanted to point out the circularity of the OP's supposition.
                    – N. Steinle
                    yesterday













                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote









                  Using the work-kinetic energy theorem like you stated is a good start. As you said, that method requires knowing the final velocity. So, just use the basic kinematic relation,



                  $$ v_{f}^{2} = v_{i}^{2} + 2aDelta x = 2aDelta x$$



                  where $Delta x$ is the displacement which is given in the problem statement. I think it's kinda straight forward from here:



                  $$ W = Delta K $$



                  $$ F Delta x = frac{1}{2}m v_{f}^{2} = frac{1}{2}m (2a Delta x) = ma Delta x$$



                  $$ F = ma $$



                  So indeed, Newton's second law is recovered, and you would just use the relation that you provided to find the acceleration. In this problem, using energy involves a bit more work than what you did originally, but it's still a workable path :)






                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  Using the work-kinetic energy theorem like you stated is a good start. As you said, that method requires knowing the final velocity. So, just use the basic kinematic relation,



                  $$ v_{f}^{2} = v_{i}^{2} + 2aDelta x = 2aDelta x$$



                  where $Delta x$ is the displacement which is given in the problem statement. I think it's kinda straight forward from here:



                  $$ W = Delta K $$



                  $$ F Delta x = frac{1}{2}m v_{f}^{2} = frac{1}{2}m (2a Delta x) = ma Delta x$$



                  $$ F = ma $$



                  So indeed, Newton's second law is recovered, and you would just use the relation that you provided to find the acceleration. In this problem, using energy involves a bit more work than what you did originally, but it's still a workable path :)







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited yesterday

























                  answered yesterday









                  N. Steinle

                  1,024112




                  1,024112












                  • I'm a little confused by this. Your kinematic equation is exactly the same as your second equation, so you've somehow used the same equation twice to recover Newton's second law. I"m not sure what exactly you did. There is a typo in the last equation, by the way.
                    – garyp
                    yesterday










                  • Thank you for pointing out the typo, it's been fixed. And to clarify, I agree that the kinematic equation I provided can be algebraically manipulated into the work-kinetic energy theorem, but if you want to use energy to solve the OP's problem then you need the final velocity, and if you want to use the work-kinetic energy theorem then it's a rather circular method of solving. One can instead use an artificial potential energy as JEB did in his solution, but I just wanted to point out the circularity of the OP's supposition.
                    – N. Steinle
                    yesterday


















                  • I'm a little confused by this. Your kinematic equation is exactly the same as your second equation, so you've somehow used the same equation twice to recover Newton's second law. I"m not sure what exactly you did. There is a typo in the last equation, by the way.
                    – garyp
                    yesterday










                  • Thank you for pointing out the typo, it's been fixed. And to clarify, I agree that the kinematic equation I provided can be algebraically manipulated into the work-kinetic energy theorem, but if you want to use energy to solve the OP's problem then you need the final velocity, and if you want to use the work-kinetic energy theorem then it's a rather circular method of solving. One can instead use an artificial potential energy as JEB did in his solution, but I just wanted to point out the circularity of the OP's supposition.
                    – N. Steinle
                    yesterday
















                  I'm a little confused by this. Your kinematic equation is exactly the same as your second equation, so you've somehow used the same equation twice to recover Newton's second law. I"m not sure what exactly you did. There is a typo in the last equation, by the way.
                  – garyp
                  yesterday




                  I'm a little confused by this. Your kinematic equation is exactly the same as your second equation, so you've somehow used the same equation twice to recover Newton's second law. I"m not sure what exactly you did. There is a typo in the last equation, by the way.
                  – garyp
                  yesterday












                  Thank you for pointing out the typo, it's been fixed. And to clarify, I agree that the kinematic equation I provided can be algebraically manipulated into the work-kinetic energy theorem, but if you want to use energy to solve the OP's problem then you need the final velocity, and if you want to use the work-kinetic energy theorem then it's a rather circular method of solving. One can instead use an artificial potential energy as JEB did in his solution, but I just wanted to point out the circularity of the OP's supposition.
                  – N. Steinle
                  yesterday




                  Thank you for pointing out the typo, it's been fixed. And to clarify, I agree that the kinematic equation I provided can be algebraically manipulated into the work-kinetic energy theorem, but if you want to use energy to solve the OP's problem then you need the final velocity, and if you want to use the work-kinetic energy theorem then it's a rather circular method of solving. One can instead use an artificial potential energy as JEB did in his solution, but I just wanted to point out the circularity of the OP's supposition.
                  – N. Steinle
                  yesterday










                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote













                  Assuming constant acceleration from rest the velocity against time graph looks like this:



                  enter image description here



                  Knowing the displacement $s$, which is the area under the graph, and the time $t$ one can link these two quantities either to the acceleration $a$ using $s = frac 12 ,at,t = frac 12at^2$ (compare with the constant acceleration kinematic equation $s = ut + frac 12 at^2$ with the initial velocity $u = 0$) or the final velocity $v$ using $s = frac12 ,v,t$ (compare with the constant acceleration kinematic equation $s = frac 12 frac{(u+v)}{t}$ with the initial velocity $u=0$).



                  One can then use either Newton's second law $F = ma$ or the work-energy theorem $Fs = frac 12 m v^2$ to find the force $F$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer



























                    up vote
                    2
                    down vote













                    Assuming constant acceleration from rest the velocity against time graph looks like this:



                    enter image description here



                    Knowing the displacement $s$, which is the area under the graph, and the time $t$ one can link these two quantities either to the acceleration $a$ using $s = frac 12 ,at,t = frac 12at^2$ (compare with the constant acceleration kinematic equation $s = ut + frac 12 at^2$ with the initial velocity $u = 0$) or the final velocity $v$ using $s = frac12 ,v,t$ (compare with the constant acceleration kinematic equation $s = frac 12 frac{(u+v)}{t}$ with the initial velocity $u=0$).



                    One can then use either Newton's second law $F = ma$ or the work-energy theorem $Fs = frac 12 m v^2$ to find the force $F$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer

























                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote









                      Assuming constant acceleration from rest the velocity against time graph looks like this:



                      enter image description here



                      Knowing the displacement $s$, which is the area under the graph, and the time $t$ one can link these two quantities either to the acceleration $a$ using $s = frac 12 ,at,t = frac 12at^2$ (compare with the constant acceleration kinematic equation $s = ut + frac 12 at^2$ with the initial velocity $u = 0$) or the final velocity $v$ using $s = frac12 ,v,t$ (compare with the constant acceleration kinematic equation $s = frac 12 frac{(u+v)}{t}$ with the initial velocity $u=0$).



                      One can then use either Newton's second law $F = ma$ or the work-energy theorem $Fs = frac 12 m v^2$ to find the force $F$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      Assuming constant acceleration from rest the velocity against time graph looks like this:



                      enter image description here



                      Knowing the displacement $s$, which is the area under the graph, and the time $t$ one can link these two quantities either to the acceleration $a$ using $s = frac 12 ,at,t = frac 12at^2$ (compare with the constant acceleration kinematic equation $s = ut + frac 12 at^2$ with the initial velocity $u = 0$) or the final velocity $v$ using $s = frac12 ,v,t$ (compare with the constant acceleration kinematic equation $s = frac 12 frac{(u+v)}{t}$ with the initial velocity $u=0$).



                      One can then use either Newton's second law $F = ma$ or the work-energy theorem $Fs = frac 12 m v^2$ to find the force $F$.







                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer








                      edited 21 hours ago

























                      answered 22 hours ago









                      Farcher

                      46.1k33589




                      46.1k33589






















                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote













                          So from energy conservation $F.s = mv^2/2$ ;$F.s=ma^2t^2/2$ ; $ F.s=frac{ 2m(at^2/2)^2}{t^2}$ ;F.s=$ frac{2m times (at^2/2)^2}{t^2}= 2ms^2/t^2$ ; note that $v = at$ and $s=at^2/2$ s= displacement v= velocity. I get the force as $F= 2 times m times s/t^2$ so i conclude the result can be also obtained by energy conservation.






                          share|cite|improve this answer



























                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote













                            So from energy conservation $F.s = mv^2/2$ ;$F.s=ma^2t^2/2$ ; $ F.s=frac{ 2m(at^2/2)^2}{t^2}$ ;F.s=$ frac{2m times (at^2/2)^2}{t^2}= 2ms^2/t^2$ ; note that $v = at$ and $s=at^2/2$ s= displacement v= velocity. I get the force as $F= 2 times m times s/t^2$ so i conclude the result can be also obtained by energy conservation.






                            share|cite|improve this answer

























                              up vote
                              0
                              down vote










                              up vote
                              0
                              down vote









                              So from energy conservation $F.s = mv^2/2$ ;$F.s=ma^2t^2/2$ ; $ F.s=frac{ 2m(at^2/2)^2}{t^2}$ ;F.s=$ frac{2m times (at^2/2)^2}{t^2}= 2ms^2/t^2$ ; note that $v = at$ and $s=at^2/2$ s= displacement v= velocity. I get the force as $F= 2 times m times s/t^2$ so i conclude the result can be also obtained by energy conservation.






                              share|cite|improve this answer














                              So from energy conservation $F.s = mv^2/2$ ;$F.s=ma^2t^2/2$ ; $ F.s=frac{ 2m(at^2/2)^2}{t^2}$ ;F.s=$ frac{2m times (at^2/2)^2}{t^2}= 2ms^2/t^2$ ; note that $v = at$ and $s=at^2/2$ s= displacement v= velocity. I get the force as $F= 2 times m times s/t^2$ so i conclude the result can be also obtained by energy conservation.







                              share|cite|improve this answer














                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer








                              edited yesterday

























                              answered yesterday









                              Nobody recognizeable

                              534516




                              534516






















                                  up vote
                                  0
                                  down vote













                                  It occurred to me that since $vec{v}=athat{i}$, it is clear that $v_{final}=2v_{average}$. Well, since $v_{average}=frac{|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}$, we know that $v_{final}=2v_{average}=frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}$. This means that
                                  $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=Delta K=frac{1}{2}mv_{final}^2$$
                                  can be solved for $|vec{F}|$ using the known mass, the known distance, and $vec{v}_{final}=frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}$:
                                  $$|vec{F}|=biggl(frac{1}{|Deltavec{x}|}biggr)biggl(frac{1}{2}biggr)mbiggl(frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}biggr)^2$$
                                  Note that $vec{F}$ and $Delta vec{x}$ both only have components in the positive $hat{i}$ direction, so I took for granted that: $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$






                                  share|cite|improve this answer



























                                    up vote
                                    0
                                    down vote













                                    It occurred to me that since $vec{v}=athat{i}$, it is clear that $v_{final}=2v_{average}$. Well, since $v_{average}=frac{|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}$, we know that $v_{final}=2v_{average}=frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}$. This means that
                                    $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=Delta K=frac{1}{2}mv_{final}^2$$
                                    can be solved for $|vec{F}|$ using the known mass, the known distance, and $vec{v}_{final}=frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}$:
                                    $$|vec{F}|=biggl(frac{1}{|Deltavec{x}|}biggr)biggl(frac{1}{2}biggr)mbiggl(frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}biggr)^2$$
                                    Note that $vec{F}$ and $Delta vec{x}$ both only have components in the positive $hat{i}$ direction, so I took for granted that: $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$






                                    share|cite|improve this answer

























                                      up vote
                                      0
                                      down vote










                                      up vote
                                      0
                                      down vote









                                      It occurred to me that since $vec{v}=athat{i}$, it is clear that $v_{final}=2v_{average}$. Well, since $v_{average}=frac{|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}$, we know that $v_{final}=2v_{average}=frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}$. This means that
                                      $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=Delta K=frac{1}{2}mv_{final}^2$$
                                      can be solved for $|vec{F}|$ using the known mass, the known distance, and $vec{v}_{final}=frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}$:
                                      $$|vec{F}|=biggl(frac{1}{|Deltavec{x}|}biggr)biggl(frac{1}{2}biggr)mbiggl(frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}biggr)^2$$
                                      Note that $vec{F}$ and $Delta vec{x}$ both only have components in the positive $hat{i}$ direction, so I took for granted that: $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$






                                      share|cite|improve this answer














                                      It occurred to me that since $vec{v}=athat{i}$, it is clear that $v_{final}=2v_{average}$. Well, since $v_{average}=frac{|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}$, we know that $v_{final}=2v_{average}=frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}$. This means that
                                      $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=Delta K=frac{1}{2}mv_{final}^2$$
                                      can be solved for $|vec{F}|$ using the known mass, the known distance, and $vec{v}_{final}=frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}$:
                                      $$|vec{F}|=biggl(frac{1}{|Deltavec{x}|}biggr)biggl(frac{1}{2}biggr)mbiggl(frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}biggr)^2$$
                                      Note that $vec{F}$ and $Delta vec{x}$ both only have components in the positive $hat{i}$ direction, so I took for granted that: $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$







                                      share|cite|improve this answer














                                      share|cite|improve this answer



                                      share|cite|improve this answer








                                      edited 20 hours ago

























                                      answered yesterday









                                      okcapp

                                      284




                                      284






























                                           

                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded



















































                                           


                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function () {
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f442863%2fnewtons-laws-vs-energy-for-solving-a-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                          }
                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          How did Captain America manage to do this?

                                          迪纳利

                                          南乌拉尔铁路局