Does the angle of fall affect the change in kinetic energy of a log?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the effect of the angle of fall on the change in kinetic energy of a log. Two cases are analyzed: one where the log falls vertically and another where it falls at a 60° angle. Both scenarios result in the log having zero kinetic energy (KE) upon coming to rest, despite the differing distances between their centers of mass. The conclusion is that the angle of fall does not affect the kinetic energy, as both cases possess the same potential energy (mgh) before impact.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gravitational potential energy (mgh)
  • Basic principles of kinetic energy (KE = 1/2 mv²)
  • Concept of center of mass in rigid bodies
  • Familiarity with free fall motion
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the relationship between potential energy and kinetic energy in free fall scenarios
  • Explore the concept of center of mass and its implications in physics
  • Study the effects of different angles of projection on motion
  • Learn about energy conservation principles in mechanical systems
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the principles of energy conservation and motion dynamics.

Manula
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
There is a uniform log lying on the ground.Now we can lift this up from one end such that the other end is in contact with the ground.Now keep the log vertical.

Case 1: Let the log fall freely such that when it comes to rest it is inline with the initial position of the log.

Case 2: Let the log fall freely such that it makes angle(say 60°) with the initial position when it comes to rest.

My question is, in the two cases the distance between the center of masses of the log in its initial position and final is different, Even though the cases are similar.
What causes this difference?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Manula! :smile:
Manula said:
… in the two cases the distance between the center of masses of the log in its initial position and final is different, Even though the cases are similar.
What causes this difference?

There's no difference in kinetic energy …

they both end up with zero KE (and they both had mgh KE just before they hit the ground) …

we don't need any energy to move something from one stationary position to another! :wink:​
 
tiny-tim, Thank you! :)
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Is Mechanical Energy Conservation Free of Ambiguity - follow up
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
7K
High School Can energy be decomposed?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Change of coordinates in a potential energy field
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Question about n rotating parallel cylinders
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
High School How does an object gain potential energy?
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
Undergrad Same old question, I still don't get it: E=1/2mv^2 - more E with V?
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
High School Kinetic energy change with initial velocity
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Undergrad Work Done/Energy Transferred in One Dimensional Collision
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School Work done in lifting and lowering an object
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
Undergrad Question about a Rotating system with mass moving inwards
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K