Comparing Car A & B's Power: Is the Answer 2x or 8x?

  • Thread starter Thread starter imsmooth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Car Power
AI Thread Summary
Car A, moving at twice the velocity of Car B, is analyzed for power output while both cars ascend a hill of equal height. Despite Car A having four times the kinetic energy of Car B, the power required for both vehicles is determined by the force needed to counteract gravity and their velocities. Since both cars have the same mass and face the same gravitational force, the power of Car A is only twice that of Car B due to its doubled speed. The kinetic energy does not affect the power calculation in this scenario, as it remains constant during the ascent. Therefore, the conclusion is that Car A's power is indeed 2x greater than Car B's.
imsmooth
Messages
154
Reaction score
13
My daughter showed me a question:
Car A and B have equal mass and go up a hill. A has twice the constant velocity of B. Compared to B the power of A is?

I found these answers here which seem to miss the point:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070331204221AAtxncN

The answer stated is 2x

However, the KE is 4x greater for car A than B.
Also, the time for car A to go up is 1/2 that of B because of the doubled velocity.

Since Power is work/time shouldn't the power of A be 8x greater than B?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, I'm not a fan of the wording, but since KE isn't changing, you can't get a power from it. So the problem can only be referring to the change in potential energy over time.
 
Last edited:
You don't need to go through all that KE and work steps.
Power can be also written as
P=F*v (Force times velocity).
As they move with constant velocity, the force should balance the tangential gravity which is the same for both (they have same mass).
So same force, twice the velocity means twice the power.
 
imsmooth said:
However, the KE is 4x greater for car A than B.

The problem doesn't say the car starts from rest so you have to assume they start with KE and 4xKE. That extra speed and KE could have come from the engine some time earlier but the problem is only concerned about the power needed to go up the hill. The initial higher KE could also have come from a previous downward slope. The point is that the KE isn't changing as you go up the hill so it makes no difference to the power required.

Also, the time for car A to go up is 1/2 that of B because of the doubled velocity.

That only reduces how long the extra power has to be delivered for not the amount of power.

If you were asked to calculate the Energy required to get to the top that would be the same in both cases but you might calculate them differently...

Slow car... Energy = Power * Time
Fast car... Energy = 2*Power*Time/2

The fact that both cars use the same energy shouldn't be a surprise because the hill is the same height in both cases. In the real world the faster car would consume more due to increased drag but that wasn't mentioned.

x2 is the correct answer.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top