Could some people help to solve an arguement?

[MooMansun]

Could some people help to solve an arguement?

A question came up on the GameDev forums about a diagram with a force being applied to it. I provide the link, but be warned, there is 6 pages of posts to go through, although some are quite funny, quite a heated battle ensues:

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=352000

At first I was messing about with the people posting, but they then settled on a solution of f=F for the diagram; the resulting force at the center of mass would be the same as the input force.

I then stopped joking and provided a solution of f=F-e, where e is the force lost (for various reason detailed in the above link). The main basis of my argument is the conservation of Energy and that for f=F to be true it would need to defy that law. Also, as an argument to real world applications the basic principles of elastic and in-elastic collisions would also prohibit f=F.

Could the good people of the physics forums help resolve this?

Who is correct?

 

[KingOfTwilight]

F doesn't create any force. Actually it makes the object accelerate, so f should be a = F/m.

 

[whozum]

Is F an instantaneous collision or a continued applied force?
F does not equal f in any case. The way to find f would be to do an energy analysis on the system depending on details that arent stated in the orginal problem.

 

[MooMansun]

The force F is acting at a perpendicular distance D from the center of mass CM. The force F will generate a torque(consequentelly an angular acceleration) and a force 'f' at the box center of mass. So my question is: what is the value of 'f'?!?

Thanks...

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=352000

F is a linear force and f is a linear force.

F/m is incorrect. We are trying to find the equation for f.

As I said earlier, the argument comes down two options f=F or f=F-e.

 

[MooMansun]

There is no mention of instantaneous or applied, only F.

 

[MooMansun]

Is F an instantaneous collision or a continued applied force?
F does not equal f in any case. The way to find f would be to do an energy analysis on the system depending on details that arent stated in the orginal problem.

So whozum, you say f=F is wrong.

The energy analysis would be drawn from the equation f=F-e, where e is the force lost.

Would you say that's fair?

 

[whozum]

Neither of those two works. Let E be the energy of the entire system, with the bar having no kinetic energy. Then the energy will be conserved, and the KE of the object colliding with the bar (with contact force F) will be split into linear and angular energy for the bar, as well as some energy left for the object to deflect and continue a path.

 

[MooMansun]

At this point we are just calculating the linear force.

Basically, I say that the resultant force (f) is based on the input force (F) minus any loss incurred (e) irrespective of how it is lost.

We are not considering any other aspect than linear force.

 

[whozum]

So whozum, you say f=F is wrong.
The energy analysis would be drawn from the equation f=F-e, where e is the force lost.
Would you say that's fair?

Theres no such thing as force loss, f=F-e is wrong because it is using forces, you need to look at energy or momentum. Let's say its a trailer that's parked and a car runs into the edge. Then the energy system would look something like this:
$KE_{car}$ = energy of the car.
$KE_{trailer}$ = trailer energy.
$KE_t = KE_i = KE_f$ = total + initial and final energy of the system.
Before the collision, all the systems energy is in the car ($KE_t = KE_{car}$. At the moment of (elastic) collision, the car loses energy which is placed into moving the trailer. At that moment the trailer will begin to spin a bit as well as get displaced in a linear fashion. The energy then will look something like ths:
$$KE_t = KE_i = KE_f = \frac{1}{2}\left(mv_{car}^2 + mv_{trailer}^2 + I\omega_{trailer}^2\right)$$

The linear force would be the linear component of the trailer's energy ([itex]KE_{trailer} = \frac{1}{2}mv_{trailer}^2) [/tex]divided by how far the trailer moves. Note the car's velocity component above is AFTER the collision.

Theres no simple answer to the posted problem because it is way too vague.

 

[MooMansun]

Theres no such thing as force loss, f=F-e is wrong because it is using forces, you need to look at energy or momentum.

That would present a fundamental flaw. Force is energy in another form, if energy must be conserved, so then must a force.

So force loss is a real thing.

 

[KingOfTwilight]

F does not create any force f. F creates acceleration a, which you think is caused by some force f.

 

[MooMansun]

If a linear force (F) is applied to a system a corresponding linear force will be found at the center of mass (f).

Whilst I am sure it would accelerate, we are not considering that. Only the tranfer of F to f, linear force.

 

[whozum]

The problem is too vague to be discussed. There is no right answer, all the solutions you both provide don't make any sense, either.

 

[MooMansun]

Perhaps not...

The problem is too vague to be discussed. There is no right answer, all the solutions you both provide don't make any sense, either.

I thought that too at the start, however, all the necessary components are there.

Basically, an unspecified force is inputed at F and a force is produced at f. If this force is linear what is the relationship between F and f.

So its crystal clear. Is the relationship f=F, where there is a complete transfer of force, or is it f=f-e, where e represents the loss of force?

Its a basic physics question...

Look at the diagram and think of a spaceship in deep-space.

 

[vanesch]

I thought that too at the start, however, all the necessary components are there.
Basically, an unspecified force is inputed at F and a force is produced at f. If this force is linear what is the relationship between F and f.
So its crystal clear. Is the relationship f=F, where there is a complete transfer of force, or is it f=f-e, where e represents the loss of force?
Its a basic physics question...
Look at the diagram and think of a spaceship in deep-space.

I have to say that the question in the problem is not entirely clear, but I think I can guess it.
It might be that what the problem wants to solve is to find THE EQUIVALENT SET OF FORCE/TORQUE that will describe the entire motion of the rigid body. Indeed, in the mechanics of rigid bodies, there are EQUIVALENCE THEOREMS of force systems: these are different sets of forces, applied at different points, which result in exactly the same motion of the rigid body. Mind you, that's only valid for a rigid body: it is NOT valid for an elastic body, or to calculate mechanical stresses in materials.
One of these theorems tells you that ANY force system can be replaced by:
1) a force applied to the center of gravity
2) a torque applied around the center of gravity
The force 1) is simply the sum of all forces everywhere.
The torque 2) is simply the sum of all perpendicular lever arms times the forces.
Me thinks this is the problem that is presented, but it should be made clear.
When I apply that theorem, then the EQUIVALENT force f = F, simply because there is only one force (so its sum is just the one force).
The EQUIVALENT TORQUE tau is D x F.
So this means you can dispense with force F, and replace it with force f and torque tau, and this will result in exactly the same motion of the bar.
It doesn't mean of course that something is pulling at the CM with force f, it simply means that you can PRETEND (as far as the rigid body motion goes) that something is pulling there, and giving it a torque too.
The acceleration of the CM will be f/m = F/m
You will also start rotating.

 

[pervect]

As Vanesch points out, the question "as-is" is confusingly worded. There is an archived thread here on physics forum where a similar question was discussed

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=78821

note that the problem has been reformulated somewhat, along the lines that Vanesch has mentioned.

I hope that you'll be able to determine who was correct and who wasn't in the linked thread -- if you need a hint, look at the "ratings" of the posters with different viewpoints (no rating, homework helper, science advisor, PF super-mentor, etc.).

 

[krab]

That would present a fundamental flaw. Force is energy in another form, if energy must be conserved, so then must a force.
So force loss is a real thing.

Force is not conserved; only energy is. If force were conserved, a lever would not be useful.

 

[pervect]

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=352000
F is a linear force and f is a linear force.
F/m is incorrect. We are trying to find the equation for f.
As I said earlier, the argument comes down two options f=F or f=F-e.

We actually need to consider two systems, the problem as originally stated is confusingly described.

System #1

|
|
|
|
|
|
|-----> force F

will move in an identical manner to System #2

|
|
|
|-----> Force f, torque T (counterclockwise)
|
|
|

when f=F and T=F*L/2

Energy is not equal to force. Energy equals force*distance, and is called "work".

For a given time interval, the work done by force F in system #1 will be greater than the work done by force f in system #2.

This is true because force F will be applied over a longer distance than force f.

The work per unit time (aka power) done by force F will be F*(v+L*w/2), where v is the velocity of the center of mass, w is the angular velocity of the rod, and L is the length of the rod.

The work per unit time done by force f will be f*v

The work per unit time done bye torque T will be T*w = F*L/2*w

Conservation of energy tells us that the total work done by force F in system #1 will be equal to the work done by force f and the work done by torque T in system #2. This is true becase

F*(v+L*W/2) = f*v + T*w, given that f=F and T=F*L/2

 

[MooMansun]

Conservation of Energy.

Force is not conserved; only energy is. If force were conserved, a lever would not be useful.

Hi Krab,

No, I do not agree with this, the lever principle principle whilst attributed to distance, has more to with arcs, surface area and basic pressure, that is force over a given square area. Also, the conservation of Energy works perfectly along with the scenario.

Force is energy in a another form, therefore an absolute must is that it obey the laws of conservation. There is no way to beat this.

As for the rest of you posters, well, I do understand that it is somewhat vague, however, it simply comes down to the transfer of F to f and whether that relationship is expressed as:

1. f=F
2. f=F-e

That's it...all that is left now is for someone not to evade the question...

 

[KingOfTwilight]

The correct answer is F=f.

 

[MooMansun]

f=F

KingofTwilight steps up f=F, droping the earlier claim of F/m.

f=F represents a 100% perfect transfer between F and f.

Force is energy, just in another form, so how do you account for the conservation of Energy/force?

 

[Doc Al]

Force is energy, just in another form, so how do you account for the conservation of Energy/force?

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Force is not energy; force is not conserved.

If your question is: What is the effect of that off-center force on the acceleration of the center of mass, then the answer is: The center of mass is accelerated exactly the same no matter where the force is applied. a = F/m; a consequence of Newton's 2nd law.

 

[MooMansun]

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Force is not energy; force is not conserved.
If your question is: What is the effect of that off-center force on the acceleration of the center of mass, then the answer is: The center of mass is accelerated exactly the same no matter where the force is applied. a = F/m; a consequence of Newton's 2nd law.

That is not the question. The question is what is the value of f. No, it is not nonsense.

'Force is not energy' - This is nonsense. All matter, or any aspect thereof, is composed ENTIRELY of energy and ONLY of energy. From the quark to the electron, ALL is energy.

Thus, all must observe the conservation of Energy, force included.

 

[Doc Al]

Thus, all must observe the conservation of Energy, force included.

This is just double-talk. Energy is conserved. Forces (and everything else) will always act in such a way as to conserve energy. So what? Force itself is not conserved.

 

[MooMansun]

This is just double-talk. Energy is conserved. Forces (and everything else) will always act in such a way as to conserve energy. So what? Force itself is not conserved.

Doc Al, I feel that it is a legitimate problem. I feel that it does not recognise force as a manifestion of energy, nor as such that it should be conserved.

I suppose I am saying that the notion that a force does not conserve energy, really flies in the face of the laws of physics. As such, I feel that it is a fundamental error in modern physics and thus calculations of force, in any system, would be in error.

This only stands to reason.

 

[ZapperZ]

Doc Al, I feel that it is a legitimate problem. I feel that it does not recognise force as a manifestion of energy, nor as such that it should be conserved.
I suppose I am saying that the notion that a force does not conserve energy, really flies in the face of the laws of physics. As such, I feel that it is a fundamental error in modern physics and thus calculations of force, in any system, would be in error.
This only stands to reason.

Do you even know the physical relationship established in physics between "force" and "energy"? If you do, then please please USE IT explain why you think they are the same. If you don't, then aren't you arguing something out of ignorance?

And oh, you MAY want to re-read the PF Guideline on posting here before you proceed any further.

Zz.

 

[Doc Al]

Doc Al, I feel that it is a legitimate problem. I feel that it does not recognise force as a manifestion of energy, nor as such that it should be conserved.
I suppose I am saying that the notion that a force does not conserve energy, really flies in the face of the laws of physics. As such, I feel that it is a fundamental error in modern physics and thus calculations of force, in any system, would be in error.
This only stands to reason.

Since force not being conserved is a consequence of the laws of physics (the real laws of physics, not imaginary ones), it certainly cannot "fly in the face" of modern physics. That only stands to reason.

Speculative posts containing personal opinions that are contrary to those currently held by the scientific community are against the Posting Guidelines of Physics Forums. If you would like to discuss your ideas, we invite you to submit a post to the Independent Research Forum, subject to the applicable guidelines, found https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=82301.

 

[MooMansun]

ZapperZ, that if a fair request and it will demonstrate this problem.

In physics, a force is an external cause responsible for any change of a physical system. For instance, a person holding a dog by a rope is experiencing the force applied by the rope on his hand, and the cause for its pulling forward is the force exercised by the rope. The kinetic expression of this change is, according to Newton's second law, acceleration, non kinetic expressions such as deformation can also occur. The SI unit for force is the Newton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

From this definition, if a person 'experiences' a given factor such as force, then energy must be involved and force must be a manifestion of energy.

Therefore, Energy must be conserved and thus force also.

A simple arguement...

 

[MooMansun]

DocAI, I would like to submit this as I find it difficult to accept calculations that do not incur a loss of some form due to one factor or another.

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ, that if a fair request and it will demonstrate this problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force
From this definition, if a person 'experiences' a given factor such as force, then energy must be involved and force must be a manifestion of energy.
Therefore, Energy must be conserved and thus force also.
A simple arguement...

Please don't simply QUOTE off someone's website. I can easily throw at you a classical mechanics text.

Tell me what YOU understand as the formulation of energy and force in physics. Describe to me the mathematical connection between the two, and then, tell me why, after reciting those, that you still insist that they are the same thing.

Zz.

 

[MooMansun]

F = dp/dt = d(m·v)/dt = m·a (in the case where m does not depend on t)
where

F is the force (a vector quantity),
p is the momentum,
t is the time,
v is the velocity,
m is the mass, and
a=d²x/dt² is the acceleration, the second derivative with respect to t of the position vector x.

If we examine the above formula and apply it to a real-world scenerio, such as a collision we begin to see clearly that the variables will change during an impact. In a simplistic scenario, velocity, momentum and acceleration would decrease in the colliding object, and increase in the object that it was in collision with.

This would result in a loss of force over the duration of the event by application of the conservation of momentum, which is a conservation of energy.

In essence, f=F-e.

 

[ZapperZ]

If we examine the above formula and apply it to a real-world scenerio, such as a collision we begin to see clearly that the variables will change during an impact. In a simplistic scenario, velocity, momentum and acceleration would decrease in the colliding object, and increase in the object that it was in collision with.
This would result in a loss of force over the duration of the event by application of the conservation of momentum, which is a conservation of energy.
In essense, f=F-e.

This is bogus, because it is NOT universal. An object that is stationary at t=0, then then you have an explosive framentation where, for simplicity, you have two particles going in opposite directions. What was the energy of mechanics before? Zero. What was the momentum before? Zero. Yet, AFTER the fragmentation, you have a positive kinetic energy (where none was there before), and yet from conservation of momentum, it is STILL zero momentum for the whole system.

Conservation of momentum is NOT equal to conservation of energy. The energy generated here did NOT come out of mechanics. Any student in intro physics are painfully aware of this. So how can you argue that they are equal when one quantity is conserved while the other is not?

P.S. I still see you refuse to read the guidelines that you have agreed to. Be warned that you participation in here will end soon if you do not pay attention.

Zz.

 

[Ba]

Read Wikipedeia's article it says that force is associated with the potential Energy field. That the potential energy's gradient is equal and opposite to the force defined at each point. Since as you might know Potential Energy is not the only type of Energy.

 

[MooMansun]

Conservation of momentum is NOT equal to conservation of energy.

Momentum is another manifestation of energy. If momentum is being conserved, energy is being conserved. Period. Also, consider the point I make later very carefully.

P.S. I still see you refuse to read the guidelines that you have agreed to. Be warned that you participation in here will end soon if you do not pay attention.

I did agree to the terms several times.

Speculative posts containing personal opinions that are contrary to those currently held by the scientific community are against the Posting Guidelines of Physics Forums.

I'm not promoting a theory. I am asking can anyone prove that Force is not lost? I have heard a lot of claims that it is not, however, no proof or reference has been provided. As far as I am aware, you are only expressing a 'personal opinion' as well.

Also, I feel the fact that everything is a manifestion of Energy means that ALL results are subject to the conservation of energy.

I am not asking that you agree with it, only that it be considered with an open view.

Whilst in classical physics, or engineering, this may not present a problem, it would with quantum and numerous other disciplines.

 

[ZapperZ]

Momentum is another manifestation of energy. If momentum is being conserved, energy is being conserved. Period. Also, consider the point I make later very carefully.
I did agree to the terms several times.
I'm not promoting a theory. I am asking can anyone prove that Force is not lost? I have heard a lot of claims that it is not, however, no proof or reference has been provided. As far as I am aware, you are only expressing a 'personal opinion' as well.
Also, I feel the fact that everything is a manifestion of Energy means that ALL results are subject to the conservation of energy.
I am not asking that you agree with it, only that it be considered with an open view.
Whilst in classical physics, or engineering, this may not present a problem, it would with quantum and numerous other disciplines.

It appears as if you are completely ignoring inelastic collision. Explain THAT!

And you ARE promoting a "theory". You are promoting an idea in which energy is force. Where in a physics text is that ever mentioned? All you did was cite of Wikipedia and then make an erroneous interpretation.

And what other proof did you want? I just GAVE you an example of something that is done even in an undergraduate physics lab! Take two object connected by a compressed spring, originally at rest, and then release the two things! The energy in the MECHANICS of the situation isn't conserved, but momentum is!

In all of this, NOT ONCE have you ever mentioned of your awareness that

$$F = - \nabla U$$

Why is that?

Zz.