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).
homework-and-exercises newtonian-mechanics energy work
add a comment |
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).
homework-and-exercises newtonian-mechanics energy work
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
add a comment |
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).
homework-and-exercises newtonian-mechanics energy work
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
homework-and-exercises newtonian-mechanics energy work
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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 :)
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
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Assuming constant acceleration from rest the velocity against time graph looks like this:
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 $F$.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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: $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered yesterday
JEB
5,3721717
5,3721717
add a comment |
add a comment |
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 :)
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
add a comment |
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 :)
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
add a comment |
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 :)
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 :)
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Assuming constant acceleration from rest the velocity against time graph looks like this:
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 $F$.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Assuming constant acceleration from rest the velocity against time graph looks like this:
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 $F$.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Assuming constant acceleration from rest the velocity against time graph looks like this:
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 $F$.
Assuming constant acceleration from rest the velocity against time graph looks like this:
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 $F$.
edited 21 hours ago
answered 22 hours ago
Farcher
46.1k33589
46.1k33589
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Nobody recognizeable
534516
534516
add a comment |
add a comment |
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: $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$
add a comment |
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: $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$
add a comment |
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: $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$
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: $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$
edited 20 hours ago
answered yesterday
okcapp
284
284
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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