Positive work along path [closed]










1














Consider I have a simple formula for the work along some path (in 1 dimension):



$$W~=~int_x_0^x_1vecFcdot dvecx.$$



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):



$vecF=Fveci$



$vecx=xveci => dvecx=dxveci$



$vecFdvecx = (Fveci)(dxveci)=Fdx$



Integration gives (assuming constant force along path for simplicity):



$int_x_0^x_1vecFdvecx = int_x_0^x_1Fdx = F int_x_0^x_1dx = F(x_1-x_0) > 0$



Consider now I move from right to left ($x_1 < x_0$) but the force is also reversed, then:



$vecF=-Fveci$



$vecx=-xveci => dvecx=-dxveci$



$vecFdvecx = (-Fveci)(-dxveci)=Fdx$



$int_x_0^x_1vecFdvecx = int_x_0^x_1Fdx = F int_x_0^x_1dx = F(x_1-x_0) < 0$



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.










share|cite|improve this 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















1














Consider I have a simple formula for the work along some path (in 1 dimension):



$$W~=~int_x_0^x_1vecFcdot dvecx.$$



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):



$vecF=Fveci$



$vecx=xveci => dvecx=dxveci$



$vecFdvecx = (Fveci)(dxveci)=Fdx$



Integration gives (assuming constant force along path for simplicity):



$int_x_0^x_1vecFdvecx = int_x_0^x_1Fdx = F int_x_0^x_1dx = F(x_1-x_0) > 0$



Consider now I move from right to left ($x_1 < x_0$) but the force is also reversed, then:



$vecF=-Fveci$



$vecx=-xveci => dvecx=-dxveci$



$vecFdvecx = (-Fveci)(-dxveci)=Fdx$



$int_x_0^x_1vecFdvecx = int_x_0^x_1Fdx = F int_x_0^x_1dx = F(x_1-x_0) < 0$



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.










share|cite|improve this 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













1












1








1







Consider I have a simple formula for the work along some path (in 1 dimension):



$$W~=~int_x_0^x_1vecFcdot dvecx.$$



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):



$vecF=Fveci$



$vecx=xveci => dvecx=dxveci$



$vecFdvecx = (Fveci)(dxveci)=Fdx$



Integration gives (assuming constant force along path for simplicity):



$int_x_0^x_1vecFdvecx = int_x_0^x_1Fdx = F int_x_0^x_1dx = F(x_1-x_0) > 0$



Consider now I move from right to left ($x_1 < x_0$) but the force is also reversed, then:



$vecF=-Fveci$



$vecx=-xveci => dvecx=-dxveci$



$vecFdvecx = (-Fveci)(-dxveci)=Fdx$



$int_x_0^x_1vecFdvecx = int_x_0^x_1Fdx = F int_x_0^x_1dx = F(x_1-x_0) < 0$



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.










share|cite|improve this question















Consider I have a simple formula for the work along some path (in 1 dimension):



$$W~=~int_x_0^x_1vecFcdot dvecx.$$



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):



$vecF=Fveci$



$vecx=xveci => dvecx=dxveci$



$vecFdvecx = (Fveci)(dxveci)=Fdx$



Integration gives (assuming constant force along path for simplicity):



$int_x_0^x_1vecFdvecx = int_x_0^x_1Fdx = F int_x_0^x_1dx = F(x_1-x_0) > 0$



Consider now I move from right to left ($x_1 < x_0$) but the force is also reversed, then:



$vecF=-Fveci$



$vecx=-xveci => dvecx=-dxveci$



$vecFdvecx = (-Fveci)(-dxveci)=Fdx$



$int_x_0^x_1vecFdvecx = int_x_0^x_1Fdx = F int_x_0^x_1dx = F(x_1-x_0) < 0$



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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 11 at 9:55









Qmechanic

101k121831141




101k121831141










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
















  • 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










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3














Your mistake is in thinking that $dx$ doesn't account for the direction of motion. More explicitly, $$dboldsymbolx neq -dx hatboldsymboli$$ in the second scenario. Instead, $$dboldsymbolx = dx hatboldsymboli$$ as in the first case.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • 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


















0














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...
beginalign
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)\
endalign



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.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3














    Your mistake is in thinking that $dx$ doesn't account for the direction of motion. More explicitly, $$dboldsymbolx neq -dx hatboldsymboli$$ in the second scenario. Instead, $$dboldsymbolx = dx hatboldsymboli$$ as in the first case.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • 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















    3














    Your mistake is in thinking that $dx$ doesn't account for the direction of motion. More explicitly, $$dboldsymbolx neq -dx hatboldsymboli$$ in the second scenario. Instead, $$dboldsymbolx = dx hatboldsymboli$$ as in the first case.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • 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













    3












    3








    3






    Your mistake is in thinking that $dx$ doesn't account for the direction of motion. More explicitly, $$dboldsymbolx neq -dx hatboldsymboli$$ in the second scenario. Instead, $$dboldsymbolx = dx hatboldsymboli$$ as in the first case.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    Your mistake is in thinking that $dx$ doesn't account for the direction of motion. More explicitly, $$dboldsymbolx neq -dx hatboldsymboli$$ in the second scenario. Instead, $$dboldsymbolx = dx hatboldsymboli$$ as in the first case.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Nov 11 at 9:53









    PiKindOfGuy

    468514




    468514











    • 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










    • 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











    0














    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...
    beginalign
    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)\
    endalign



    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      0














      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...
      beginalign
      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)\
      endalign



      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer























        0












        0








        0






        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...
        beginalign
        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)\
        endalign



        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        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...
        beginalign
        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)\
        endalign



        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.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 11 at 19:02









        robphy

        1,817138




        1,817138













            Popular posts from this blog

            How to how show current date and time by default on contact form 7 in WordPress without taking input from user in datetimepicker

            Syphilis

            Darth Vader #20