Energy and a Frictional Incline

  • Thread starter Thread starter samurai
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Incline
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving energy and motion on a frictional incline. The scenario includes a crate sliding down a ramp, with participants analyzing potential energy, kinetic energy, and the effects of friction on the system.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the calculation of potential and kinetic energy, the impact of friction on energy conservation, and the determination of acceleration. There are attempts to reconcile energy lost to friction with the overall energy balance.

Discussion Status

Some participants have recalculated values considering friction, leading to new velocity and acceleration estimates. There is ongoing exploration of the correct application of energy principles and forces involved, with no explicit consensus on the final values yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of energy transformations and the influence of friction in their calculations. There is a recognition of the need to include all forces acting on the crate, including gravitational force and frictional force, in their analyses.

samurai
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I was hoping I could get some help on this particular exam review question:

[4] A 3.0kg crate slides down a ramp at a loading dock. The ramp is 1.0m in length and inclined at an angle of 30 degrees. The crate starts from rest at the top of the ramp and experiences a constant frictional force of magnitude 5N, and continues to move for a short distance on the flat floor. (a) Use the energy methods to determine the speed of the crate when it reaches the bottom of the ramp. (b) Determine the acceleration of the crate.


For part A, I found the initial Potential Energy to be 14.75 (PE=mgh), and since PI-initial is 14.75 and KE-initial is 0, KE-final must be 14.75 as well (since PE-final will be 0). I then used KE=(1/2)mv^2 to find the velocity, which I found to be 3.1 m/s.

For part B, I used W=F*d to find Work to be 5J (F=5, d=1). I then used W=m*a*d to find the acceleration, which I think I did incorrectly. Using that formula I found the acceleration to be a=1.667 m/s^2.

I don't think these are correct, but I cannot think of a way to better include the frictional force of 5N. Any suggestions?

Thanks for your time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by samurai
For part A, I found the initial Potential Energy to be 14.75 (PE=mgh), and since PI-initial is 14.75 and KE-initial is 0, KE-final must be 14.75 as well (since PE-final will be 0). I then used KE=(1/2)mv^2 to find the velocity, which I found to be 3.1 m/s.
You forgot to include the energy "lost" due to friction. You calculated the initial energy correctly. The final energy (KE) equals the original energy minus that which is transformed into thermal energy due to friction (this is the "work" done by friction).
For part B, I used W=F*d to find Work to be 5J (F=5, d=1). I then used W=m*a*d to find the acceleration, which I think I did incorrectly. Using that formula I found the acceleration to be a=1.667 m/s^2.
This time you did the opposite: you ignored gravity and only considered friction! You can use Fnet=ma to find the acceleration. Be sure to include both gravity and friction. But, since you've just calculated the final KE in part a, you can also make use of the kinematic equation: V2=2ad.
 
Thanks very much Doc,

I recalculated part A with friction included, so KE-final changed from 14.715J to 9.715J after I subtracted the 5J lost to friction. This changed my velocity value to 2.55 m/s using the KE=(1/2)mv^2 formula.

So as you suggested I plugged in that velocity value into V^2=2ad and found a to equal a=3.25 m/s^2. Do you know if those numbers are correct?

Again, thanks for the boost Doc.
 
Originally posted by samurai
Do you know if those numbers are correct?
Close enough. And you are welcome. :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K