What is the minimum height for a cart to complete a circular track?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on determining the minimum height from which a cart must be released to complete a circular track with a radius of 3 meters. The final answer is established as 1.5 meters, derived using the law of conservation of energy. Two approaches are presented: one assumes potential energy (PE) is zero at the top of the loop, while the other uses the bottom of the loop as the reference point. Both methods yield the same result, emphasizing that potential energy is relative and only the difference matters. Clarification is provided that the actual value of potential energy is not as important as the change in potential energy between two points.
MrWarlock616
Messages
160
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


A 'loop a loop' cart runs down an incline and then inside a circular track of radius 3.0 meter and describes a complete circle. Find the minimum height above the top of a circular track from which the cart must be released.

Homework Equations


So given data is:
r=3 m
To find: Height between the top of the circle and the point from which the cart is thrown.
We have to use law of conservation of energy.

The Attempt at a Solution


Okay I'm a little confused here. The final answer is 1.5 m. My solution book has done it like this:
p4x2p.jpg


Then it goes like :

##mgh=\frac{1}{2}mv^2##, then ##mgh=\frac{1}{2}mrg## since velocity at top is ##\sqrt{rg}##

Then ##h=\frac{r}{2}=1.5 m##

But how can the P.E at the top become zero?

The way I've done it is, I've taken the reference point at the bottom of the circle. So it's like:
2ensty0.jpg


From the image, the total energy at the top of the circle must equal the energy at the starting point. SO,
##mg(2r) + \frac{1}{2}m(v_1)^2=mg(2r+h)+0##
Evaluating that, we get ##rg=2gh## and therefore ##h=\frac{r}{2}=1.5m##.
So, who's right ? My book or me? Is the energy at the top of the circle really zero? Answer is the same. Sorry my question is noobish. Please help. I like mechanics but these kind of sums always confuse me.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Both approaches lead to the same result...PE is measured with respect to a reference axis...any arbitrary axis...It's the change in PE that is the same...you assume PE = 0 at the bottom, while the book assumes PE =0 at the top of the loop...it doesn't matter. Suppose the bottom of the loop was elevated 2 m above ground and you chose PE =0 at ground level...you still get the same value for h...
 
So, in reality is the potential energy at the top zero or not?
 
MrWarlock616 said:
So, in reality is the potential energy at the top zero or not?

We can measure potential energy difference only: the work done by the force when an object moves from place A to B: this is equal to the potential difference U(A)-U(B). You can add an arbitrary constant to the potential function, the difference is the same.

So the gravitational potential energy is U= mgh + const. You can choose the constant that U = 0 at h=0, tehn U=mgh. But you measure the height h also relative to something. If h1=h is the height from the top of the circle and h2 is the height measured from the bottom of the circle, h2=h1+2r. In the first case, U1=mgh and it is U2=mgh2=mg(h+2r)=mgh+mg(2r). But mg(2r) is constant in the problem. U1 and U2 differ only in an additive constant. The potential difference between the starting point (A) and at the top of the circle (B) is U(A)-U(B)=mgh - mg0 =mgh in the first case, and mg(h+2r)-mg(2r) in the second case: both are mgh.

ehild
 
ehild said:
We can measure potential energy difference only: the work done by the force when an object moves from place A to B: this is equal to the potential difference U(A)-U(B). You can add an arbitrary constant to the potential function, the difference is the same.

So the gravitational potential energy is U= mgh + const. You can choose the constant that U = 0 at h=0, tehn U=mgh. But you measure the height h also relative to something. If h1=h is the height from the top of the circle and h2 is the height measured from the bottom of the circle, h2=h1+2r. In the first case, U1=mgh and it is U2=mgh2=mg(h+2r)=mgh+mg(2r). But mg(2r) is constant in the problem. U1 and U2 differ only in an additive constant. The potential difference between the starting point (A) and at the top of the circle (B) is U(A)-U(B)=mgh - mg0 =mgh in the first case, and mg(h+2r)-mg(2r) in the second case: both are mgh.

ehild
Ah...okay now I get it, it's the difference, not the actual P.E. Thanks a lot ehild your explanation was quite helpful!
 
You are welcome.

ehild
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top