Calculating Maximum Kinetic Energy from Potential Energy

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the maximum kinetic energy of an object moving along a straight line, starting from rest. The potential energy values at different positions are provided, leading to questions about the relationship between potential energy and kinetic energy, particularly in the context of conservation of mechanical energy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between changes in kinetic energy and potential energy, questioning the assumptions made regarding initial conditions and the interpretation of energy values. Some express confusion about the correct application of energy conservation principles.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, with some providing insights into the conservation of mechanical energy. There is a recognition of differing interpretations regarding the initial conditions and potential energy values, but no explicit consensus has been reached on the maximum kinetic energy calculation.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of a graph that is referenced but not visible in the discussion, which may affect the understanding of potential energy values at specific points. Additionally, participants are navigating assumptions about the starting point of the object's motion.

amcavoy
Messages
663
Reaction score
0
Basically, an object moves along a straight line (starting at rest) and reaches a maximum kinetic energy at .7 m. At 0 meters, the potential energy is 4 J and at .7 meters, the potential energy is -2 J. What is the maximum kinetic energy?

I know that the answer is 4 J. However, it would seem to me that the change in kinetic energy is equal to the negative potential energy.

[tex]\Delta K=K_f-K_i=K_f[/tex]

[tex]-U=\Delta K=2[/tex]

This seems that the kinetic energy is 2. Where am I going wrong?

Thanks for the help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Assuming mechanical energy is conserved, the change in KE equals the negative change in PE.

(What makes you think that the answer is 4 J?)
 
Doc Al said:
Assuming mechanical energy is conserved, the change in KE equals the negative change in PE.
(What makes you think that the answer is 4 J?)
It is a web-assign type of thing and it took 4 J as the correct answer. The graph is attached if you want to take a look.

Thank you.
 

Attachments

  • 171-8-4.gif
    171-8-4.gif
    1.1 KB · Views: 645
Also, on the same graph, it asks for stable and unstable eq. points. The answer is that stable eqs. occur at x=.7 and x=1.9 while unstable eqs. occur at x=1.5. I know what a stable / unstable equilibrium is for a differential equation, but how does that apply here?

Thanks again.
 
apmcavoy said:
It is a web-assign type of thing and it took 4 J as the correct answer. The graph is attached if you want to take a look.
Looking at the graph, I don't see how "At 0 meters, the potential energy is 4 J ...". Looks to me like the graph doesn't even show the potential at 0 meters.
 
apmcavoy said:
I know what a stable / unstable equilibrium is for a differential equation, but how does that apply here?
In mechanics, a particle is in equilibrium if the force is zero. (That will be when the slope of the potential curve is zero.) If you nudge the particle from its equilibrium position, and the force tends to return it to equilibrium, then that point is one of stable equilibrium. On the other hand, if the force tends to send the particle away from the equilibrium position, it's unstable. (Think of a marble sitting in a valley versus being balanced at the top of a hill. Which position do you think is stable? Unstable?)
 
I see now. For some reason I was just assuming the particle began at 0. I guess the problem requires the assumption that the particle begins at point A (at least, that's what seems to make sense).

Also, thanks for the clarification on equilibrium. That makes more sense now.

Thanks again!
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K