Recent content by SiliconCPU

I apologize for all the changes. I'm going through the "Latex" documentation to learn how it works =)

I'm seeing the box on the rope as contributing energy to m_1, which could be the problem with my understanding. The way I see it is m_1 is moving up the hill because m_2 is losing potential energy. Why subtract the differences?

Here is the startup equation that relates to this particular problem... [(1/2)(5kg)v_{f}^2 + (5kg)(9.8m/s^2)(0.8m)] - [(1/2)(5kg)(2m/s)^2 + (5kg)(9.8m/s^2)(-3m)] = (5N)(3m)(-1) which was derieved from the equation... [(1/2)Mv_{f}^2 - (1/2)Mv_{i}^2 + Mg(h_{f} - h_{i})] - [(1/2)Mv_{f}^2 -...

Also, I noticed the instructor used +9.8m/s/s as the acceleration due to gravity. Is this correct? I'm assuming that he's using positive upward (from illustration), but why doesn't he have the acceleration negative?

Okay. Here is the illustration & problem discription. I have the solution, I just need an understanding as to why the problem was setup the way it was. http://www.dynamic-cpp.com/misc/phy.jpg The problem setup is as follows... [Total Change in KE + PE of Box on Incline] - [Total Change...

Ha-ha, I apologize. Well, I can only ask if I can post a small illustration. Is that okay?

Okay, do you mind if I ask you another question somewhat related to this question, but sticking to the Kinetic Energy/Potential Energy stuff?

I have a question regarding the Rolling Motion equation. (1/2)Mv^2 + (1/2)I\omega^2 + Mgy (Where M=mass, v=velocity, I=moment of inertia,ω=angular velocity, g=force due to gravity and y = vertical distance) The problem I'm having involves the direction of the acceleration due to gravity...