I Getting the sign right with the work-energy theorem

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Rick16
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the application of the work-energy theorem in a specific physics problem, highlighting confusion over the sign convention used in the equation W = Tinitial - Tfinal. One participant notes that using W = Tfinal - Tinitial leads to nonsensical results, indicating a sign error in the textbook. Additionally, the power equation P = \mathcal{E}^2/R is discussed, revealing another sign error that offsets the first. The blurred print in the source material adds to the confusion, particularly regarding the definition of work done on the rod. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the common issue of sign errors in physics problems.
Rick16
Messages
136
Reaction score
31
TL;DR Summary
getting the sign right with the work-energy theorem
This is problem 3 in section 2.3.4 from Conquering the Physics GRE by Kahn and Anderson:

problem.JPG

And here is the solution from the book:
solution.JPG

The point of confusion for me is that they use the work-energy theorem in the form W = Tinitial - Tfinal, instead of the other way around. If I were to do this problem, I would write W = Tfinal - Tinitial, but then I end up with a negative time, which does not make sense. What am I missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are right that the work performed on the rod should be ##W = \dfrac 1 2 m \dot x^2 - \dfrac 1 2 m \dot x_0^2##. So, the text has a sign error here.

But ##P = \mathcal{E}^2/R## gives the rate at which KE of the rod is transformed into Joule heat in ##R##. So, ##P## equals the rate of loss of KE of the rod. Thus, ##P = -\dfrac {d}{dt} (KE)_{\rm rod}= - \dfrac {dW} {dt}##. So, the text has an additional sign error here that compensates for the first error.

The print in the margin of the image is blurred, so I'm assuming ##W## is the work done on the rod.
 
Last edited:
Thanks a lot! I constantly run into problems with minus signs. I think they make up 98% of all the mistakes that I make. It's very frustrating. And yes, the text says "the work performed on the rod". Sorry about the bad quality of the scan. I scanned the page several times and this is the best that I could do.
 
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (Second part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8. I want to understand some issues more correctly. It's a little bit difficult to understand now. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. In the page 196, in the first paragraph, the author argues as follows ...
Thread 'Inducing EMF Through a Coil: Understanding Flux'
Thank you for reading my post. I can understand why a change in magnetic flux through a conducting surface would induce an emf, but how does this work when inducing an emf through a coil? How does the flux through the empty space between the wires have an effect on the electrons in the wire itself? In the image below is a coil with a magnetic field going through the space between the wires but not necessarily through the wires themselves. Thank you.
Back
Top