Conservation of Energy and calculating potential energy?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the gravitational potential energy (U) of a rock before it slides down a hill. The key formula for potential energy is U = mgh, where m is mass, g is gravitational acceleration, and h is height. The length of the hillside and the coefficient of kinetic friction are deemed irrelevant for this calculation, as they do not affect the initial potential energy. The conversation emphasizes that potential energy depends solely on the height from which the rock is falling and not on the path taken. Ultimately, the correct approach is to use the formula U = mgh to determine the potential energy just before the rock slides.
suspenc3
Messages
400
Reaction score
0
during a rockslide a 520kg rock slides from rest down a hillside that is 500m long and 300m high. The coeeficient of kinetic friction is 0.25. If the gravitational potential energy U of the rock-earth system is zero at the bottom of the hill, what is the value of U just beofre it slides?

I know this is wrong, but I tried:

U_g = mghcos \Theta
U_g = 9.2 x 10^5J

What do I do?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is a good question. There is too much information given in the problem. Specifically, neither the length of the hillside nor the coefficient of friction are important. The gravitational potential energy is just U = mgh. The statement about U = 0 at the bottom of the hill just establishes that h = 0 at the bottom of the hill (since m and g are never 0).

The important part is: do you understand why the friction and length are unimportant in this question?

-Dale
 
Last edited:
well friction wouldn't matter because it only has to do with thermal energy?

but there are more parts to the question, that is why a lot of the info seems useless.

Why doesn't the angle come into play when calculating potential energy?
 
suspenc3 said:
well friction wouldn't matter because it only has to do with thermal energy?
but there are more parts to the question, that is why a lot of the info seems useless.
Why doesn't the angle come into play when calculating potential energy?

Potential energy is the energy a mass has at rest, potentially it could fall and turn that energy into kinetic energy. change in U is = change in K [conservation of energy] U doesn't even care about any angles because there is no angle involved with a rock sitting in one place.
 
That and also gravity is a conservative field. Meaning that the path you take (the angle) is irrelevant, only the change in the potential is important.

Suspenc3, you hit the key idea about the friction. Basically, if it were frictionless than all of the PE at the top would go into KE at the bottom. With the friction some of the PE will go to heat and some will go to KE, but the initial PE is still the same.

-Dale
 
Ya..Other information are irrelevent.
You can simply use mgh to find the change in GPE, then add it to zero.. U shld get an answer.
 
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