Calories generated in brakes of a machine

AI Thread Summary
A discussion centers on calculating the calories generated in the brakes of a 1000 kg car traveling at 3 m/sec until it stops. The kinetic energy formula indicates that the energy developed is approximately 1.07 kcal, but there is confusion regarding the conversion between different calorie units. Participants debate whether the result should be expressed as 1.07 kcal or 1075 kcal, with some arguing that 1.07 kcal seems too low for the given mass and speed. The conversation highlights the potential for misunderstanding due to different numerical conventions in Europe. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards the calculated result being reasonable, given the speed of the vehicle.
Karol
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
22

Homework Statement


A 1000 kg mass car is driving at 3 [m/sec], how many kcal develop in the brakes till full stop

Homework Equations


Kinetic energy: E=\frac{1}{2}mv^2
Energetic equivalent of a kcal: 4186 [joule]

The Attempt at a Solution


##E=\frac{1}{2}1000\cdot 9=4500[joule]##
##\frac{4500}{4186}=1.07[kcal]##
It should be 1000 times bigger, 1,075[kcal]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Karol said:

Homework Statement


A 1000 kg mass car is driving at 3 [m/sec], how many kcal develop in the brakes till full stop

Homework Equations


Kinetic energy: E=\frac{1}{2}mv^2
Energetic equivalent of a kcal: 4186 [joule]

The Attempt at a Solution


##E=\frac{1}{2}1000\cdot 9=4500[joule]##
##\frac{4500}{4186}=1.07[kcal]##
It should be 1000 times bigger, 1,075[kcal]
I get your answer. Is there perhaps a confusion between decimal comma and decimal point?
 
by you get my answer you mean you also get the same result? i don't know if there's a confusion between a comma and a decimal point, but please tell me if the result of 1 kcal is reasonable? it isn't, right? so my answer isn't correct
 
Karol said:
by you get my answer you mean you also get the same result? i don't know if there's a confusion between a comma and a decimal point, but please tell me if the result of 1 kcal is reasonable? it isn't, right? so my answer isn't correct
I mean I agree with your answer, a bit over one kcal. But in continental Europe, that could be written 1,075, no?
 
I don't know about europe, I'm interested in my result. 1.07 kcal seems to me too low for that mass and speed, isn't it? and 1075 cal are gram calories, the heat needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water. my result is indeed 1075 gram calories, but i ask about kg calories, kcal. i think the answer must be 1075 kcal, it seems more reasonable
 
Karol said:
I don't know about europe, I'm interested in my result.
Bear in mind that I do not know where you are or where your textbooks come from. Many on these forums are in continental Europe. I'm trying to understand why you are told the right answer is "1,075 kcal", when you and I both calculate it as just over 1 kcal.
1.07 kcal seems to me too low for that mass and speed, isn't it? and 1075 cal are gram calories, the heat needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water. my result is indeed 1075 gram calories, but i ask about kg calories, kcal. i think the answer must be 1075 kcal, it seems more reasonable
No, 1 kcal seems reasonable to me. 3m/s is not very fast. I would not expect the generated heat to be enough to boil off a litre of water![/QUOTE]
 
You are probably right. but to boil 1 liter, from 00 to 1000 we need only 100 kcal, so 1075 is much more than to boil 1 liter of water, no?
 
Back
Top