Calculate Net Work on 391kg Piano Sliding 3.7m Down 27° Incline

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fanman22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Net Work
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves calculating the net work done on a 391 kg piano sliding down a 27° incline, where the effective coefficient of kinetic friction is 0.40. Participants are discussing the forces acting on the piano and the work done by various forces, including gravity, friction, and a man pushing against the piano.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to calculate the net work using the work-energy principle and are questioning the role of the normal force in the calculations. Some suggest omitting the normal force component as it does not do work in the direction of motion.

Discussion Status

There is ongoing exploration of how to correctly account for the work done by different forces. Some participants have provided insights into the nature of kinetic energy and potential energy, while others are still grappling with the implications of the normal force and its contribution to the net work calculation.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the absence of velocity, acceleration, or time in the problem, leading to discussions about the implications for kinetic energy and potential energy calculations. There is a concern about double counting gravitational potential energy in the work calculations.

Fanman22
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
A 391 kg piano slides 3.7 m down a(n) 27° incline and is kept from accelerating by a man who is pushing back on it parallel to the incline (Fig. 7-23). The effective coefficient of kinetic friction is 0.40.

Figure 7-23

(a) Calculate the force exerted by the man.
374N
(b) Calculate the work done by the man on the piano.
-1384J
(c) Calculate the work done by the friction force.
-5054J
(d) Calculate the work done by the force of gravity.
6438J
(e) Calculate the net work done on the piano.
_____J

I got the previous questions correct with the exception of letter "e".
This is what I did...

WORKnet = Wgravity-Wfriction+Wnormal force in x direction-Work man in x direction

My numbers were 6438-5054+6437-1384 = 6437J
The problem must be in the way I'm calculating the normal force in the x direction. I used Fn=Fg*sin27*3.7m=6437J

Thanks in advance for the help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fanman22 said:
I got the previous questions correct with the exception of letter "e".
This is what I did...

WORKnet = Wgravity-Wfriction+Wnormal force in x direction-Work man in x direction
The normal force has no component in the x-direction (parallel to the incline) and thus does no work.

The problem must be in the way I'm calculating the normal force in the x direction. I used Fn=Fg*sin27*3.7m=6437J
The normal force equals the component of the weight normal to the incline: [itex]F_n = mg cos(27)[/itex]. But, as previously mentioned, it acts perpendicular to the motion and thus does no work.

A shortcut way to get the net work on an object: The net work equals the change in KE.
 
so I should simply be able to omit the WORKnormalforce component and get the answer...but its still wrong. Since there is no velocity given, and there is no acceleration or time, then it has a KE of 0, right?

Maybe I can use the change in potential energy? I can find the length of all sides since the 27degree angle is given and the distance 3.7 is given. Find the mgh at the max height, then find the mgh at the min height. Will the difference be the -Work ?
 
Fanman22 said:
so I should simply be able to omit the WORKnormalforce component and get the answer...but its still wrong.
What makes you say that? Just add the values you found for b, c, and d to find the total work.
Since there is no velocity given, and there is no acceleration or time, then it has a KE of 0, right?
The KE depends on the speed, which you don't know. But all you care about is the change in KE, which is zero.

Maybe I can use the change in potential energy?
You've already incorporated gravitational potential energy by caculating the work done by gravity. Don't count it twice.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
12K