Calculating Work and Kinetic Energy of Jet-Powered Train

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on calculating work and kinetic energy for a jet-powered train from the 1950s, with a mass of 25,000 kg and a thrust of 500,000 N over a distance of 500 m. The work done on the train is calculated using the formula Work = Force x Distance, resulting in 250,000,000 J. The change in kinetic energy is equal to the final kinetic energy since the train starts from rest, confirming that the final speed can be derived from the kinetic energy equation. The discussion clarifies that understanding these principles is crucial for solving the problem accurately.

PREREQUISITES
  • Newton's Second Law of Motion
  • Kinetic Energy Formula (KE = 0.5 * mass * velocity^2)
  • Work-Energy Principle
  • Basic Algebra for solving equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Work-Energy Theorem in physics
  • Learn how to derive final velocity from kinetic energy
  • Explore examples of thrust calculations in jet propulsion
  • Investigate frictionless motion scenarios in classical mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in physics, engineers working on propulsion systems, and anyone interested in the principles of work and energy in mechanical systems.

DarkAnt
Messages
195
Reaction score
0
In the 1950s, an experimental train that had a mass of 2.5 x 10^4kg was powered across level track by a jet engine that produced a thrust of 5 x 10^5N for a distance of 500m.
a) find the work done on the train.
b) find the change in kinetic energy.
c) find the final kinetic energy of the train if it started from rest.
d) find the final speed of the train if there was no friction.

ok, part A was easy. part b and c confuse me. since the train started at rest, wouldn't the change in kinetic energy be equal to the final kinetic energy?

am i missing something very important here or am i just missunderstanding this problem?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by DarkAnt
... since the train started at rest, wouldn't the change in kinetic energy be equal to the final kinetic energy?
Yes.
am i missing something very important here or am i just missunderstanding this problem?
That depends on whether you can answer the questions correctly or not. :smile: If the questions seem too easy... you're probably right.
 
thanks doc
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K