Skip to main content

The force applied on a body of mass 5kg is 20 N. If the body moves through a distance of 12 m, calculate the amount of work done.

In physics, work occurs when a force is applied to an object which then moves (has displacement) in the same direction as the force.  The amount of work that is done in the situation in your question is 240 J where “J” stands for joules.  We find this value by using the equation W = Fd where W is work, F is force, and d is displacement.


In your question, only the force applied to the object and the distance it moves (is displaced) are important.  The weight/mass of the object is irrelevant and is probably included to test whether you understand that it is not used in calculating work in this case.  To illustrate, let us look at a very similar example problem from the physics curriculum that I am teaching from this semester:


In this problem, a woman lifted a 40 kg bag to a height of 0.8 m. To do this, she used a force of 500 N. The question asked how much work she did in lifting the bag.  The correct answer was:


W = Fd = (500 N)(0.8 m) = 400 J


In your question, the equation would look like this:


W = Fd = (20 N) (12 m) = 240 J


One way to be certain that you should not have used the mass of the object in your equation is to look at the units involved.  A newton is defined as kg*m/s^2.  When you multiply newtons by meters, you get kg*m^2/s^2.  This is the definition of a joule.  If you included the mass of the object, you would square the kg as well and you would not end up with an answer in joules.  Since work is measured in joules, you would have made a mistake.


So, in this problem, disregard the mass of the object, use the equation W = Fd, and find that the work done in this instance was 240 J.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more