Calculating Potential Energy Change on an Incline - What am I doing wrong?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the change in potential energy for a mass moving along an incline. The original poster presents a scenario involving a 0.4 kg mass that moves up 40 cm along an incline with a vertical height of 7.0 cm, and they express confusion regarding their calculations and the appropriate formulas to use.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the original poster's use of the potential energy change formula related to springs, questioning its relevance to gravitational potential energy. They suggest using the formula for gravitational potential energy instead, prompting a discussion on the correct application of physics concepts.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring different interpretations of the problem and questioning the original poster's understanding of the concepts involved. Some guidance has been offered regarding the appropriate formulas, and there is an ongoing dialogue about the basic principles of potential energy.

Contextual Notes

There is some ambiguity regarding the direction of the mass's movement along the incline, which participants note may not affect the calculation of potential energy change. The original poster's calculations are also noted as potentially incorrect, leading to further inquiry into their understanding of the concepts.

winterma
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
A .4 kg mass moves up 40 cm along an incline. The vertical height of the incline is 7.0 cm. The potential energy change is??

I used the formula for PEC. 1/2k(deltaX)^2 which got me to 320 joules. That is wrong though. What am i doing wrong?

If a force of .85N pulled parallel up along the surface of the incline is required to raise the mass back to the top of the incline, how much work is done?

i used W=fd
w=.85(40)
w=34

but that answer is wrong. I am doing something wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
winterma said:
A .4 kg mass moves up 40 cm along an incline. The vertical height of the incline is 7.0 cm. The potential energy change is??

I used the formula for PEC. 1/2k(deltaX)^2 which got me to 320 joules. That is wrong though. What am i doing wrong?
What's "PEC"? And if I'm not mistaken, the expression (not formula) you've given is that for the potential energy due to the extension of a spring -- this problem has nothing to do with springs. Gravitational potential energy, in this case, is given by:

[tex]\Delta E_{grav} = mg\Delta h[/tex]

Where m is the mass of the object, g is the gravitational constant, and [itex]\Delta h[/itex] is the change in height. A little trigonometry will allow you to determine the total change in height of the object.

If a force of .85N pulled parallel up along the surface of the incline is required to raise the mass back to the top of the incline, how much work is done?

i used W=fd
w=.85(40)
w=34

but that answer is wrong. I am doing something wrong.
At this point, I've given you a number of formulas, but the questions you ask suggest that you aren't understanding some of the basic concepts of these physics questions. You can find the formulas yourself, and you should, yourself, be able to figure out which formulas to use, and when, but you don't seem to get the concepts. Make sure you take time to understand these problems and whatever your textbook says, even though you can quickly find the right formula and plug in the right numbers. Now, tell us what your books says the answer is, and maybe we'll try and work backwards.
 
There is something goofy about the question. In the first part, does the mass go up or down the incline?

It makes no difference, because you have a mass of 0.4 kg that changes elevation by 7 cm. Therefore the mass will lose or gain (depending on the direction of travel) PE = mgh = 0.4(9.8)(0.07) = ... joules of potential energy during the process.
 
so rounded off, the G.P.E is 0.28 joules. i don't see why you require harder formulas than just gpe = mgh.
 

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
9K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K