Positive work along path [closed]
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Consider I have a simple formula for the work along some path (in 1 dimension):
$$W~=~int_{x_0}^{x_1}vec{F}cdot dvec{x}.$$
If I now move from left to right ($x_1 > x_0$) along the axis (assuming the X-axis points right) it is obvious that (using unit vectors along the axis):
$vec{F}=Fvec{i}$
$vec{x}=xvec{i} => dvec{x}=dxvec{i}$
$vec{F}dvec{x} = (Fvec{i})(dxvec{i})=Fdx$
Integration gives (assuming constant force along path for simplicity):
$int_{x_0}^{x_1}vec{F}dvec{x} = int_{x_0}^{x_1}Fdx = F int_{x_0}^{x_1}dx = F(x_1-x_0) > 0$
Consider now I move from right to left ($x_1 < x_0$) but the force is also reversed, then:
$vec{F}=-Fvec{i}$
$vec{x}=-xvec{i} => dvec{x}=-dxvec{i}$
$vec{F}dvec{x} = (-Fvec{i})(-dxvec{i})=Fdx$
$int_{x_0}^{x_1}vec{F}dvec{x} = int_{x_0}^{x_1}Fdx = F int_{x_0}^{x_1}dx = F(x_1-x_0) < 0$
Obviously, there is some terrible mistake here in my reasoning... If we move from one point to another along the force direction the work must be positive.
newtonian-mechanics work vectors coordinate-systems conventions
closed as off-topic by sammy gerbil, Jon Custer, Chair, Cosmas Zachos, Bill N Nov 19 at 15:33
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better" – sammy gerbil, Jon Custer, Chair, Cosmas Zachos, Bill N
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Consider I have a simple formula for the work along some path (in 1 dimension):
$$W~=~int_{x_0}^{x_1}vec{F}cdot dvec{x}.$$
If I now move from left to right ($x_1 > x_0$) along the axis (assuming the X-axis points right) it is obvious that (using unit vectors along the axis):
$vec{F}=Fvec{i}$
$vec{x}=xvec{i} => dvec{x}=dxvec{i}$
$vec{F}dvec{x} = (Fvec{i})(dxvec{i})=Fdx$
Integration gives (assuming constant force along path for simplicity):
$int_{x_0}^{x_1}vec{F}dvec{x} = int_{x_0}^{x_1}Fdx = F int_{x_0}^{x_1}dx = F(x_1-x_0) > 0$
Consider now I move from right to left ($x_1 < x_0$) but the force is also reversed, then:
$vec{F}=-Fvec{i}$
$vec{x}=-xvec{i} => dvec{x}=-dxvec{i}$
$vec{F}dvec{x} = (-Fvec{i})(-dxvec{i})=Fdx$
$int_{x_0}^{x_1}vec{F}dvec{x} = int_{x_0}^{x_1}Fdx = F int_{x_0}^{x_1}dx = F(x_1-x_0) < 0$
Obviously, there is some terrible mistake here in my reasoning... If we move from one point to another along the force direction the work must be positive.
newtonian-mechanics work vectors coordinate-systems conventions
closed as off-topic by sammy gerbil, Jon Custer, Chair, Cosmas Zachos, Bill N Nov 19 at 15:33
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better" – sammy gerbil, Jon Custer, Chair, Cosmas Zachos, Bill N
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
I believe in the second integral the limits should switch places, shoudl they not? EDIT: Wait, hold on, i am reading it once more.
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:43
But this integral does include orientation, this it should always be from $x_0$ to $x_1$. I believe.
– rk85
Nov 11 at 9:45
I caught that as well, i am rereading it. As you say, something could be wrong here, we just need to find it
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:46
The limits on the integral tell you the direction of motion. Don't put a sign on the $dx$.
– Bill N
Nov 19 at 15:33
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Consider I have a simple formula for the work along some path (in 1 dimension):
$$W~=~int_{x_0}^{x_1}vec{F}cdot dvec{x}.$$
If I now move from left to right ($x_1 > x_0$) along the axis (assuming the X-axis points right) it is obvious that (using unit vectors along the axis):
$vec{F}=Fvec{i}$
$vec{x}=xvec{i} => dvec{x}=dxvec{i}$
$vec{F}dvec{x} = (Fvec{i})(dxvec{i})=Fdx$
Integration gives (assuming constant force along path for simplicity):
$int_{x_0}^{x_1}vec{F}dvec{x} = int_{x_0}^{x_1}Fdx = F int_{x_0}^{x_1}dx = F(x_1-x_0) > 0$
Consider now I move from right to left ($x_1 < x_0$) but the force is also reversed, then:
$vec{F}=-Fvec{i}$
$vec{x}=-xvec{i} => dvec{x}=-dxvec{i}$
$vec{F}dvec{x} = (-Fvec{i})(-dxvec{i})=Fdx$
$int_{x_0}^{x_1}vec{F}dvec{x} = int_{x_0}^{x_1}Fdx = F int_{x_0}^{x_1}dx = F(x_1-x_0) < 0$
Obviously, there is some terrible mistake here in my reasoning... If we move from one point to another along the force direction the work must be positive.
newtonian-mechanics work vectors coordinate-systems conventions
Consider I have a simple formula for the work along some path (in 1 dimension):
$$W~=~int_{x_0}^{x_1}vec{F}cdot dvec{x}.$$
If I now move from left to right ($x_1 > x_0$) along the axis (assuming the X-axis points right) it is obvious that (using unit vectors along the axis):
$vec{F}=Fvec{i}$
$vec{x}=xvec{i} => dvec{x}=dxvec{i}$
$vec{F}dvec{x} = (Fvec{i})(dxvec{i})=Fdx$
Integration gives (assuming constant force along path for simplicity):
$int_{x_0}^{x_1}vec{F}dvec{x} = int_{x_0}^{x_1}Fdx = F int_{x_0}^{x_1}dx = F(x_1-x_0) > 0$
Consider now I move from right to left ($x_1 < x_0$) but the force is also reversed, then:
$vec{F}=-Fvec{i}$
$vec{x}=-xvec{i} => dvec{x}=-dxvec{i}$
$vec{F}dvec{x} = (-Fvec{i})(-dxvec{i})=Fdx$
$int_{x_0}^{x_1}vec{F}dvec{x} = int_{x_0}^{x_1}Fdx = F int_{x_0}^{x_1}dx = F(x_1-x_0) < 0$
Obviously, there is some terrible mistake here in my reasoning... If we move from one point to another along the force direction the work must be positive.
newtonian-mechanics work vectors coordinate-systems conventions
newtonian-mechanics work vectors coordinate-systems conventions
edited Nov 11 at 9:55
Qmechanic♦
100k121791125
100k121791125
asked Nov 11 at 9:36
rk85
371
371
closed as off-topic by sammy gerbil, Jon Custer, Chair, Cosmas Zachos, Bill N Nov 19 at 15:33
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better" – sammy gerbil, Jon Custer, Chair, Cosmas Zachos, Bill N
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as off-topic by sammy gerbil, Jon Custer, Chair, Cosmas Zachos, Bill N Nov 19 at 15:33
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better" – sammy gerbil, Jon Custer, Chair, Cosmas Zachos, Bill N
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
I believe in the second integral the limits should switch places, shoudl they not? EDIT: Wait, hold on, i am reading it once more.
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:43
But this integral does include orientation, this it should always be from $x_0$ to $x_1$. I believe.
– rk85
Nov 11 at 9:45
I caught that as well, i am rereading it. As you say, something could be wrong here, we just need to find it
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:46
The limits on the integral tell you the direction of motion. Don't put a sign on the $dx$.
– Bill N
Nov 19 at 15:33
add a comment |
I believe in the second integral the limits should switch places, shoudl they not? EDIT: Wait, hold on, i am reading it once more.
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:43
But this integral does include orientation, this it should always be from $x_0$ to $x_1$. I believe.
– rk85
Nov 11 at 9:45
I caught that as well, i am rereading it. As you say, something could be wrong here, we just need to find it
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:46
The limits on the integral tell you the direction of motion. Don't put a sign on the $dx$.
– Bill N
Nov 19 at 15:33
I believe in the second integral the limits should switch places, shoudl they not? EDIT: Wait, hold on, i am reading it once more.
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:43
I believe in the second integral the limits should switch places, shoudl they not? EDIT: Wait, hold on, i am reading it once more.
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:43
But this integral does include orientation, this it should always be from $x_0$ to $x_1$. I believe.
– rk85
Nov 11 at 9:45
But this integral does include orientation, this it should always be from $x_0$ to $x_1$. I believe.
– rk85
Nov 11 at 9:45
I caught that as well, i am rereading it. As you say, something could be wrong here, we just need to find it
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:46
I caught that as well, i am rereading it. As you say, something could be wrong here, we just need to find it
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:46
The limits on the integral tell you the direction of motion. Don't put a sign on the $dx$.
– Bill N
Nov 19 at 15:33
The limits on the integral tell you the direction of motion. Don't put a sign on the $dx$.
– Bill N
Nov 19 at 15:33
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Your mistake is in thinking that $dx$ doesn't account for the direction of motion. More explicitly, $$dboldsymbol{x} neq -dx hat{boldsymbol{i}}$$ in the second scenario. Instead, $$dboldsymbol{x} = dx hat{boldsymbol{i}}$$ as in the first case.
Thank you! I was looking for a stray - somewhere.
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:57
Thanks. But in the first case I move from left to right, in the second one, from right to left, thus the sign should change. Is that correct? In fact in seems it doesn't but why? Thanks in advance.
– rk85
Nov 11 at 10:06
@rk85 It follows from the definition of a Riemann integral. Revisit it.
– PiKindOfGuy
Nov 11 at 10:17
1
@rk85 PiKindOfGuy is correct. The quantity dx always points in the positive x direction. Just look at that quantity itself. When x increases it always increases in the positive x direction, regardless of the limits of integration. By flipping the sign you are doing a change of variable, which would require you to change your limits of integration in the normal fashion.
– Dale
Nov 11 at 10:21
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
This answer amplifies @PiKindOfGuy's answer and @Dale's comment.
I think there is a confusion in the use and/or interpretation of
$dvec x$
- as an infinitesimal element of a directed path
and - as an increment of the x-coordinate.
Let's use $dvec s$ for the infinitesimal element of a path.
Let P and Q refer to start and end of the path.
So, $$W=int_P^Q vec Fcdot dvec s$$
Before I begin, I want to emphasize that the Force $vec F$ is generally independent of the path (and its direction) of the displacement. For instance, the gravitational force always points down... but the path could be arbitrary.
In your example, when you turn, you are changing the direction of the force and the displacement... let's say forward from P to Q then backward to R, where
$x_P ,x_R < x_Q$.
Along a horizontal displacement and constant magnitude force
...with no mention of any directions...
begin{align}
W_{AB}
&=int_A^B vec Fcdot dvec s\
&=int_A^B (F_x hat i + F_y hat j) cdot (dx hat i)\
&=int_{x_A}^{x_B} F_x dx\
&=F_x (x_B-x_A)\
end{align}
So, for the forward force $F_x=F$ along the forward path (displacement $(x_Q-x_P)>0$), we have
$$W_{PQ}= (F )(x_Q-x_P)>0.$$
For the backward force $F_x=-F$ along the backward path (displacement $(x_R-x_Q)<0$), we have
$$W_{QR}= (-F)(x_R-x_Q)>0.$$
Note that the lower limit and upper limit refer to the start and end of the oriented path... the limits control the orientation of the path.
Note the lower limit and the upper limits are not necessarily the smaller and larger of x-coordinates.
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Your mistake is in thinking that $dx$ doesn't account for the direction of motion. More explicitly, $$dboldsymbol{x} neq -dx hat{boldsymbol{i}}$$ in the second scenario. Instead, $$dboldsymbol{x} = dx hat{boldsymbol{i}}$$ as in the first case.
Thank you! I was looking for a stray - somewhere.
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:57
Thanks. But in the first case I move from left to right, in the second one, from right to left, thus the sign should change. Is that correct? In fact in seems it doesn't but why? Thanks in advance.
– rk85
Nov 11 at 10:06
@rk85 It follows from the definition of a Riemann integral. Revisit it.
– PiKindOfGuy
Nov 11 at 10:17
1
@rk85 PiKindOfGuy is correct. The quantity dx always points in the positive x direction. Just look at that quantity itself. When x increases it always increases in the positive x direction, regardless of the limits of integration. By flipping the sign you are doing a change of variable, which would require you to change your limits of integration in the normal fashion.
– Dale
Nov 11 at 10:21
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Your mistake is in thinking that $dx$ doesn't account for the direction of motion. More explicitly, $$dboldsymbol{x} neq -dx hat{boldsymbol{i}}$$ in the second scenario. Instead, $$dboldsymbol{x} = dx hat{boldsymbol{i}}$$ as in the first case.
Thank you! I was looking for a stray - somewhere.
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:57
Thanks. But in the first case I move from left to right, in the second one, from right to left, thus the sign should change. Is that correct? In fact in seems it doesn't but why? Thanks in advance.
– rk85
Nov 11 at 10:06
@rk85 It follows from the definition of a Riemann integral. Revisit it.
– PiKindOfGuy
Nov 11 at 10:17
1
@rk85 PiKindOfGuy is correct. The quantity dx always points in the positive x direction. Just look at that quantity itself. When x increases it always increases in the positive x direction, regardless of the limits of integration. By flipping the sign you are doing a change of variable, which would require you to change your limits of integration in the normal fashion.
– Dale
Nov 11 at 10:21
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Your mistake is in thinking that $dx$ doesn't account for the direction of motion. More explicitly, $$dboldsymbol{x} neq -dx hat{boldsymbol{i}}$$ in the second scenario. Instead, $$dboldsymbol{x} = dx hat{boldsymbol{i}}$$ as in the first case.
Your mistake is in thinking that $dx$ doesn't account for the direction of motion. More explicitly, $$dboldsymbol{x} neq -dx hat{boldsymbol{i}}$$ in the second scenario. Instead, $$dboldsymbol{x} = dx hat{boldsymbol{i}}$$ as in the first case.
answered Nov 11 at 9:53
PiKindOfGuy
448514
448514
Thank you! I was looking for a stray - somewhere.
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:57
Thanks. But in the first case I move from left to right, in the second one, from right to left, thus the sign should change. Is that correct? In fact in seems it doesn't but why? Thanks in advance.
– rk85
Nov 11 at 10:06
@rk85 It follows from the definition of a Riemann integral. Revisit it.
– PiKindOfGuy
Nov 11 at 10:17
1
@rk85 PiKindOfGuy is correct. The quantity dx always points in the positive x direction. Just look at that quantity itself. When x increases it always increases in the positive x direction, regardless of the limits of integration. By flipping the sign you are doing a change of variable, which would require you to change your limits of integration in the normal fashion.
– Dale
Nov 11 at 10:21
add a comment |
Thank you! I was looking for a stray - somewhere.
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:57
Thanks. But in the first case I move from left to right, in the second one, from right to left, thus the sign should change. Is that correct? In fact in seems it doesn't but why? Thanks in advance.
– rk85
Nov 11 at 10:06
@rk85 It follows from the definition of a Riemann integral. Revisit it.
– PiKindOfGuy
Nov 11 at 10:17
1
@rk85 PiKindOfGuy is correct. The quantity dx always points in the positive x direction. Just look at that quantity itself. When x increases it always increases in the positive x direction, regardless of the limits of integration. By flipping the sign you are doing a change of variable, which would require you to change your limits of integration in the normal fashion.
– Dale
Nov 11 at 10:21
Thank you! I was looking for a stray - somewhere.
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:57
Thank you! I was looking for a stray - somewhere.
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:57
Thanks. But in the first case I move from left to right, in the second one, from right to left, thus the sign should change. Is that correct? In fact in seems it doesn't but why? Thanks in advance.
– rk85
Nov 11 at 10:06
Thanks. But in the first case I move from left to right, in the second one, from right to left, thus the sign should change. Is that correct? In fact in seems it doesn't but why? Thanks in advance.
– rk85
Nov 11 at 10:06
@rk85 It follows from the definition of a Riemann integral. Revisit it.
– PiKindOfGuy
Nov 11 at 10:17
@rk85 It follows from the definition of a Riemann integral. Revisit it.
– PiKindOfGuy
Nov 11 at 10:17
1
1
@rk85 PiKindOfGuy is correct. The quantity dx always points in the positive x direction. Just look at that quantity itself. When x increases it always increases in the positive x direction, regardless of the limits of integration. By flipping the sign you are doing a change of variable, which would require you to change your limits of integration in the normal fashion.
– Dale
Nov 11 at 10:21
@rk85 PiKindOfGuy is correct. The quantity dx always points in the positive x direction. Just look at that quantity itself. When x increases it always increases in the positive x direction, regardless of the limits of integration. By flipping the sign you are doing a change of variable, which would require you to change your limits of integration in the normal fashion.
– Dale
Nov 11 at 10:21
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
This answer amplifies @PiKindOfGuy's answer and @Dale's comment.
I think there is a confusion in the use and/or interpretation of
$dvec x$
- as an infinitesimal element of a directed path
and - as an increment of the x-coordinate.
Let's use $dvec s$ for the infinitesimal element of a path.
Let P and Q refer to start and end of the path.
So, $$W=int_P^Q vec Fcdot dvec s$$
Before I begin, I want to emphasize that the Force $vec F$ is generally independent of the path (and its direction) of the displacement. For instance, the gravitational force always points down... but the path could be arbitrary.
In your example, when you turn, you are changing the direction of the force and the displacement... let's say forward from P to Q then backward to R, where
$x_P ,x_R < x_Q$.
Along a horizontal displacement and constant magnitude force
...with no mention of any directions...
begin{align}
W_{AB}
&=int_A^B vec Fcdot dvec s\
&=int_A^B (F_x hat i + F_y hat j) cdot (dx hat i)\
&=int_{x_A}^{x_B} F_x dx\
&=F_x (x_B-x_A)\
end{align}
So, for the forward force $F_x=F$ along the forward path (displacement $(x_Q-x_P)>0$), we have
$$W_{PQ}= (F )(x_Q-x_P)>0.$$
For the backward force $F_x=-F$ along the backward path (displacement $(x_R-x_Q)<0$), we have
$$W_{QR}= (-F)(x_R-x_Q)>0.$$
Note that the lower limit and upper limit refer to the start and end of the oriented path... the limits control the orientation of the path.
Note the lower limit and the upper limits are not necessarily the smaller and larger of x-coordinates.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
This answer amplifies @PiKindOfGuy's answer and @Dale's comment.
I think there is a confusion in the use and/or interpretation of
$dvec x$
- as an infinitesimal element of a directed path
and - as an increment of the x-coordinate.
Let's use $dvec s$ for the infinitesimal element of a path.
Let P and Q refer to start and end of the path.
So, $$W=int_P^Q vec Fcdot dvec s$$
Before I begin, I want to emphasize that the Force $vec F$ is generally independent of the path (and its direction) of the displacement. For instance, the gravitational force always points down... but the path could be arbitrary.
In your example, when you turn, you are changing the direction of the force and the displacement... let's say forward from P to Q then backward to R, where
$x_P ,x_R < x_Q$.
Along a horizontal displacement and constant magnitude force
...with no mention of any directions...
begin{align}
W_{AB}
&=int_A^B vec Fcdot dvec s\
&=int_A^B (F_x hat i + F_y hat j) cdot (dx hat i)\
&=int_{x_A}^{x_B} F_x dx\
&=F_x (x_B-x_A)\
end{align}
So, for the forward force $F_x=F$ along the forward path (displacement $(x_Q-x_P)>0$), we have
$$W_{PQ}= (F )(x_Q-x_P)>0.$$
For the backward force $F_x=-F$ along the backward path (displacement $(x_R-x_Q)<0$), we have
$$W_{QR}= (-F)(x_R-x_Q)>0.$$
Note that the lower limit and upper limit refer to the start and end of the oriented path... the limits control the orientation of the path.
Note the lower limit and the upper limits are not necessarily the smaller and larger of x-coordinates.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
This answer amplifies @PiKindOfGuy's answer and @Dale's comment.
I think there is a confusion in the use and/or interpretation of
$dvec x$
- as an infinitesimal element of a directed path
and - as an increment of the x-coordinate.
Let's use $dvec s$ for the infinitesimal element of a path.
Let P and Q refer to start and end of the path.
So, $$W=int_P^Q vec Fcdot dvec s$$
Before I begin, I want to emphasize that the Force $vec F$ is generally independent of the path (and its direction) of the displacement. For instance, the gravitational force always points down... but the path could be arbitrary.
In your example, when you turn, you are changing the direction of the force and the displacement... let's say forward from P to Q then backward to R, where
$x_P ,x_R < x_Q$.
Along a horizontal displacement and constant magnitude force
...with no mention of any directions...
begin{align}
W_{AB}
&=int_A^B vec Fcdot dvec s\
&=int_A^B (F_x hat i + F_y hat j) cdot (dx hat i)\
&=int_{x_A}^{x_B} F_x dx\
&=F_x (x_B-x_A)\
end{align}
So, for the forward force $F_x=F$ along the forward path (displacement $(x_Q-x_P)>0$), we have
$$W_{PQ}= (F )(x_Q-x_P)>0.$$
For the backward force $F_x=-F$ along the backward path (displacement $(x_R-x_Q)<0$), we have
$$W_{QR}= (-F)(x_R-x_Q)>0.$$
Note that the lower limit and upper limit refer to the start and end of the oriented path... the limits control the orientation of the path.
Note the lower limit and the upper limits are not necessarily the smaller and larger of x-coordinates.
This answer amplifies @PiKindOfGuy's answer and @Dale's comment.
I think there is a confusion in the use and/or interpretation of
$dvec x$
- as an infinitesimal element of a directed path
and - as an increment of the x-coordinate.
Let's use $dvec s$ for the infinitesimal element of a path.
Let P and Q refer to start and end of the path.
So, $$W=int_P^Q vec Fcdot dvec s$$
Before I begin, I want to emphasize that the Force $vec F$ is generally independent of the path (and its direction) of the displacement. For instance, the gravitational force always points down... but the path could be arbitrary.
In your example, when you turn, you are changing the direction of the force and the displacement... let's say forward from P to Q then backward to R, where
$x_P ,x_R < x_Q$.
Along a horizontal displacement and constant magnitude force
...with no mention of any directions...
begin{align}
W_{AB}
&=int_A^B vec Fcdot dvec s\
&=int_A^B (F_x hat i + F_y hat j) cdot (dx hat i)\
&=int_{x_A}^{x_B} F_x dx\
&=F_x (x_B-x_A)\
end{align}
So, for the forward force $F_x=F$ along the forward path (displacement $(x_Q-x_P)>0$), we have
$$W_{PQ}= (F )(x_Q-x_P)>0.$$
For the backward force $F_x=-F$ along the backward path (displacement $(x_R-x_Q)<0$), we have
$$W_{QR}= (-F)(x_R-x_Q)>0.$$
Note that the lower limit and upper limit refer to the start and end of the oriented path... the limits control the orientation of the path.
Note the lower limit and the upper limits are not necessarily the smaller and larger of x-coordinates.
answered Nov 11 at 19:02
robphy
1,702137
1,702137
add a comment |
add a comment |
I believe in the second integral the limits should switch places, shoudl they not? EDIT: Wait, hold on, i am reading it once more.
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:43
But this integral does include orientation, this it should always be from $x_0$ to $x_1$. I believe.
– rk85
Nov 11 at 9:45
I caught that as well, i am rereading it. As you say, something could be wrong here, we just need to find it
– DakkVader
Nov 11 at 9:46
The limits on the integral tell you the direction of motion. Don't put a sign on the $dx$.
– Bill N
Nov 19 at 15:33