Mechanical power is normally defined as $P = \mathrm{d}W/\mathrm{d}t$, and work is normally defined as $W = \vec F \cdot \vec x$. Today an undergrad pointed out a confusion he had from Griffiths' E&M book where he has the line

$$P = \frac{\mathrm{d}W}{\mathrm{d}t} = \vec F \cdot \vec v$$

Which is a definition of power I had seen before. But the student was confused because it seems like, if you have a time dependent force $\vec F(t)$, the math should work out like:

$$P = \frac{\mathrm{d}W}{\mathrm{d}t} = \frac{\mathrm{d}\vec F(t)}{\mathrm{d}t} \cdot \vec x + \vec F \cdot \frac{\mathrm{d}\vec x(t)}{\mathrm{d}t}$$

(From the product rule.)

However, I've never seen the above formula, so I'm guessing it's wrong. Also, it clashes with the $\vec F \cdot \vec v$ version that I'm pretty sure works completely fine with a time dependent force.

I gave him a pretty weak answer and warned him that it's probably not correct: I told him that if you start with the differential form of work, $dW = \vec F \cdot d \vec x$, it seems to assume that the force stays the same in that tiny $d\vec x$, so it's constant there, and then dividing both by $dt$ gives you the equation we're looking for.

Wikipedia seems to say something similar, basically using the step of $d\vec x = \vec v \ dt$ to get $\vec F \cdot \vec v$, which also assumes that $\vec v$ is constant over $d \vec x$.

So, assuming one of those are correct, I see how they get $\vec F \cdot \vec v$. But what's the flaw in the product rule thing?

  • $\begingroup$ Work is ${\rm d}W = \vec{F} \cdot {\rm d} \vec{x}$ as it applies to small increments of displacement. If you use $W= \vec{F} \cdot \vec{x}$ you are making assumtions of constant force and of linear path. $\endgroup$ – ja72 Jul 18 '17 at 16:47
  • $\begingroup$ Note that $\frac{ {\rm d} \vec{F} }{ {\rm d}t} = 0$ is already built in the epxression $W= \vec{F} \cdot \vec{x}$. $\endgroup$ – ja72 Jul 18 '17 at 16:54

The error in the original reasoning comes from asserting that $W=\vec F\cdot \vec x$. This is only true if the force is constant.

For a particle traveling along a parameterized curve $\vec x(t)$ and under the influence of a force $\vec F(\vec x,t)$ which is explicitly dependent on both position in space and time, the work performed on the particle by this force from a time $t_0$ to a time $t$ is defined as follows: \begin{align} W_{t_0}(t) = \int_{t_0}^{t} \vec F(\vec x(t'),t')\cdot \dot{\vec x}(t') \,dt' \end{align} Note that the expression on the right is often written $\int \vec F\cdot \vec dx$, but this is really schematic, the the mathematically precise definition is what I have written above in terms of a parameterized path with an integral over some range of parameter values. The definition of instantaneous power is then \begin{align} P(t) = \dot W_{t_0}(t) \end{align} Taking the derivative of both sides with respect to $t$, and using the fundamental theorem of calculus, we obtain the desired expression for the power \begin{align} P(t) = F(\vec x(t),t)\cdot \dot{\vec x}(t) \end{align}

  • $\begingroup$ I think $F$ doesn't have to be constant but constant direction. $\endgroup$ – Shuchang Sep 20 '13 at 0:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ShuchangZhang That's simply not true. If you want to take the force outside of the integral, then it must not have non-trivial dependence on space or time. $\endgroup$ – joshphysics Sep 20 '13 at 0:53
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, yes indeed. $\endgroup$ – Shuchang Sep 20 '13 at 0:56
  • $\begingroup$ $\int\vec F\cdot d\vec x$ is precise if you understand it as symbolic notation for the 1-form $\sum_i F_i dx^i$ $\endgroup$ – Christoph Dec 2 '13 at 20:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Christoph Agreed, although I hesitate to say such things in an answer like this since I think few who would be confused by the question would also understand differential forms. Thanks for the comment. $\endgroup$ – joshphysics Dec 2 '13 at 20:19

If you take a closed system with no external forces acting on it, and within it there is a force acting on a mass that moves a distance $d\vec r$, then $$\vec F\cdot d\vec r + d(energy) = 0$$

So because of its physical significance as part of a conservation law, it's given the name work done and a differential definition:

$$dW = \vec F\cdot \vec dr$$

You can create all sorts of differential expressions involving $\vec F, \vec r$ and their differentials such as $d(\vec x\cdot\vec F) = d\vec x\cdot\vec F + d\vec F\cdot\vec x$, but that doesn't make them physically useful.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.