Newton's laws vs energy for solving a problem
up vote
1
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 the 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
add a comment |
up vote
1
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 the 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
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
4 hours ago
1
When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
– G. Smith
4 hours ago
@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
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
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 the 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
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 the 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
homework-and-exercises newtonian-mechanics energy
edited 3 hours ago
asked 5 hours ago
okcapp
234
234
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
4 hours ago
1
When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
– G. Smith
4 hours ago
@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
4 hours ago
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
4 hours ago
1
When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
– G. Smith
4 hours ago
@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
4 hours ago
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
4 hours ago
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
4 hours ago
1
1
When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
– G. Smith
4 hours ago
When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
– G. Smith
4 hours ago
@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
4 hours ago
@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
4 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
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
1
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
4 hours ago
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
4 hours ago
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 must be true that $v_{final}=2v_{average}$. 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 twice the average speed:
$$|vec{F}|=biggl(frac{1}{|Deltavec{x}|}biggr)biggl(frac{1}{2}biggr)mbiggl(frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}biggr)^2$$
Note that since $vec{F}$ and $Delta vec{x}$ both only have components in the positive $hat{i}$ direction, $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
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 4 hours ago
JEB
5,2921717
5,2921717
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
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
4 hours ago
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
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
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
4 hours ago
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
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
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 4 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
N. Steinle
907110
907110
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
4 hours ago
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
4 hours ago
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
4 hours ago
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
4 hours ago
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
4 hours ago
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
4 hours ago
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
4 hours ago
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
4 hours ago
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 1 hour ago
answered 4 hours ago
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 must be true that $v_{final}=2v_{average}$. 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 twice the average speed:
$$|vec{F}|=biggl(frac{1}{|Deltavec{x}|}biggr)biggl(frac{1}{2}biggr)mbiggl(frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}biggr)^2$$
Note that since $vec{F}$ and $Delta vec{x}$ both only have components in the positive $hat{i}$ direction, $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
It occurred to me that since $vec{v}=athat{i}$, it must be true that $v_{final}=2v_{average}$. 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 twice the average speed:
$$|vec{F}|=biggl(frac{1}{|Deltavec{x}|}biggr)biggl(frac{1}{2}biggr)mbiggl(frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}biggr)^2$$
Note that since $vec{F}$ and $Delta vec{x}$ both only have components in the positive $hat{i}$ direction, $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
It occurred to me that since $vec{v}=athat{i}$, it must be true that $v_{final}=2v_{average}$. 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 twice the average speed:
$$|vec{F}|=biggl(frac{1}{|Deltavec{x}|}biggr)biggl(frac{1}{2}biggr)mbiggl(frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}biggr)^2$$
Note that since $vec{F}$ and $Delta vec{x}$ both only have components in the positive $hat{i}$ direction, $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$
It occurred to me that since $vec{v}=athat{i}$, it must be true that $v_{final}=2v_{average}$. 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 twice the average speed:
$$|vec{F}|=biggl(frac{1}{|Deltavec{x}|}biggr)biggl(frac{1}{2}biggr)mbiggl(frac{2|Deltavec{x}|}{t_{total}}biggr)^2$$
Note that since $vec{F}$ and $Delta vec{x}$ both only have components in the positive $hat{i}$ direction, $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$
edited 30 mins ago
answered 3 hours ago
okcapp
234
234
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
4 hours ago
1
When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
– G. Smith
4 hours ago
@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
4 hours ago