Cons. of Energy, momentum ,and impact.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conservation of energy in calculating the velocity of a 3000kg anvil affected by a spring. The user questions the inclusion of gravitational potential energy in the energy equation, specifically the term 29.4(10^3)(0.024), suggesting it may be double-counted. They express skepticism about the solution provided, noting that it appears to ignore the gravitational potential energy associated with the anvil's compression of the spring. The concern is that this could be an error in the textbook answer, leading to confusion in the calculations. The conversation highlights the complexities of energy conservation when multiple forces are at play.
pyroknife
Messages
611
Reaction score
4
I attached the problem statement only with PART of the solutions.
He is using the conservation of energy to find the velocity of the anvil.
T=Kinetic energy
V sub e=potential energy of the spring
V sub g=potential energy of gravity

The part I am not understand is how ΔV sub e = 1/2(2.8*10^6)(0.024)^2+29.4(10^3)(0.024) J

Why do they have the 29.4(10^3)(0.024) there?? That's potential energy of gravity. My professor said the answer was right and that he has checked over it, but he takes a long time to respond so I'm asking it on here.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    28.9 KB · Views: 521
Physics news on Phys.org
That's because the springs have a massive 3000kg anvil on it. So you have to account for the force of that on it and the distance it has moved as well.

So when that spring is released, it's moving itself as well as the anvil, to account for that extra energy you have to include the anvil.
 
NewtonianAlch said:
That's because the springs have a massive 3000kg anvil on it. So you have to account for the force of that on it and the distance it has moved as well.

So when that spring is released, it's moving itself as well as the anvil, to account for that extra energy you have to include the anvil.

The problem is, the given solution first includes the gravitational PE with the spring PE, then subtracts it again under the separate guise of gravitational PE. Thus the gravitational PE is essentially being ignored entirely for the anvil/spring compression.

I'd call this highly suspicious behavior! It looks like a fudge to make the solution match the given answer. Perhaps whoever provided the book answer simply forgot to include gravitational PE when they solved it, and now the only way to match the "correct" answer is to recreate their error.
 
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