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).



Edit: I realized after looking at some of the feedback that I do know the final velocity (because the linear dependance of velocity on time means the average velocity must be half the final velocity). Therefore, you can see below, that I have posted the answer I was hoping to write back when I wished I knew the final velocity.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 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
    Nov 24 at 1:14






  • 1




    When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
    – G. Smith
    Nov 24 at 1:16












  • @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
    Nov 24 at 1:17















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).



Edit: I realized after looking at some of the feedback that I do know the final velocity (because the linear dependance of velocity on time means the average velocity must be half the final velocity). Therefore, you can see below, that I have posted the answer I was hoping to write back when I wished I knew the final velocity.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 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
    Nov 24 at 1:14






  • 1




    When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
    – G. Smith
    Nov 24 at 1:16












  • @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
    Nov 24 at 1:17













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).



Edit: I realized after looking at some of the feedback that I do know the final velocity (because the linear dependance of velocity on time means the average velocity must be half the final velocity). Therefore, you can see below, that I have posted the answer I was hoping to write back when I wished I knew the final velocity.










share|cite|improve this question















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).



Edit: I realized after looking at some of the feedback that I do know the final velocity (because the linear dependance of velocity on time means the average velocity must be half the final velocity). Therefore, you can see below, that I have posted the answer I was hoping to write back when I wished I knew the final velocity.







homework-and-exercises newtonian-mechanics energy work






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 25 at 10:38

























asked Nov 24 at 1:04









okcapp

496




496








  • 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
    Nov 24 at 1:14






  • 1




    When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
    – G. Smith
    Nov 24 at 1:16












  • @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
    Nov 24 at 1:17














  • 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
    Nov 24 at 1:14






  • 1




    When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
    – G. Smith
    Nov 24 at 1:16












  • @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
    Nov 24 at 1:17








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
Nov 24 at 1:14




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
Nov 24 at 1:14




1




1




When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
– G. Smith
Nov 24 at 1:16






When I walk, I don’t accelerate uniformly and go faster and faster.
– G. Smith
Nov 24 at 1:16














@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
Nov 24 at 1:17




@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
Nov 24 at 1:17










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote













Assuming constant acceleration from rest the velocity against time graph looks like this:



enter image description here



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 $F$.






share|cite|improve this answer






























    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      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 :)






      share|cite|improve this answer























      • 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
        Nov 24 at 1:45










      • 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
        Nov 24 at 1:53


















      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer






























        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: $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$






        share|cite|improve this answer























          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "151"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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

























          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes








          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          3
          down vote













          Assuming constant acceleration from rest the velocity against time graph looks like this:



          enter image description here



          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 $F$.






          share|cite|improve this answer



























            up vote
            3
            down vote













            Assuming constant acceleration from rest the velocity against time graph looks like this:



            enter image description here



            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 $F$.






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              3
              down vote










              up vote
              3
              down vote









              Assuming constant acceleration from rest the velocity against time graph looks like this:



              enter image description here



              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 $F$.






              share|cite|improve this answer














              Assuming constant acceleration from rest the velocity against time graph looks like this:



              enter image description here



              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 $F$.







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited Nov 24 at 7:36

























              answered Nov 24 at 7:24









              Farcher

              46.2k33589




              46.2k33589






















                  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.






                  share|cite|improve this answer

























                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer























                      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.






                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      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.







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered Nov 24 at 1:38









                      JEB

                      5,4021717




                      5,4021717






















                          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 :)






                          share|cite|improve this answer























                          • 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
                            Nov 24 at 1:45










                          • 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
                            Nov 24 at 1:53















                          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 :)






                          share|cite|improve this answer























                          • 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
                            Nov 24 at 1:45










                          • 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
                            Nov 24 at 1:53













                          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 :)






                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          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 :)







                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer








                          edited Nov 24 at 1:47

























                          answered Nov 24 at 1:39









                          N. Steinle

                          1,192113




                          1,192113












                          • 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
                            Nov 24 at 1:45










                          • 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
                            Nov 24 at 1:53


















                          • 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
                            Nov 24 at 1:45










                          • 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
                            Nov 24 at 1:53
















                          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
                          Nov 24 at 1:45




                          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
                          Nov 24 at 1:45












                          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
                          Nov 24 at 1:53




                          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
                          Nov 24 at 1:53










                          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.






                          share|cite|improve this answer



























                            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.






                            share|cite|improve this answer

























                              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.






                              share|cite|improve this answer














                              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.







                              share|cite|improve this answer














                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer








                              edited Nov 24 at 5:01

























                              answered Nov 24 at 1:52









                              Nobody recognizeable

                              568516




                              568516






















                                  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: $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$






                                  share|cite|improve this answer



























                                    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: $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$






                                    share|cite|improve this answer

























                                      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: $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$






                                      share|cite|improve this answer














                                      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: $$vec{F}cdotDeltavec{x}=|vec{F}||Deltavec{x}|$$







                                      share|cite|improve this answer














                                      share|cite|improve this answer



                                      share|cite|improve this answer








                                      edited Nov 24 at 9:18

























                                      answered Nov 24 at 2:24









                                      okcapp

                                      496




                                      496






























                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded




















































                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid



                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid



                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          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





















































                                          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







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

                                          Alcedinidae

                                          Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]