Conservation of Energy confusion

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a physics problem involving the conservation of energy, specifically regarding a dog jumping off a 10 m cliff with an initial speed of 3 m/s and landing on a ledge 4 m below. The correct application of the conservation of energy equation, KEi + PEi = KEf + PEf, reveals that the final height must be adjusted to reflect the ledge's position relative to the cliff. The error in the initial calculation stemmed from misinterpreting the height of the ledge, which should be considered as -4 m relative to the cliff's height, leading to the correct final speed of 11.36 m/s.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of kinetic energy (KE) and potential energy (PE) concepts
  • Familiarity with the conservation of energy principle
  • Basic algebra for solving equations
  • Knowledge of gravitational acceleration (approximately 10 m/s²)
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the conservation of energy principle in physics
  • Practice problems involving potential and kinetic energy calculations
  • Learn about reference frames in physics and their impact on energy calculations
  • Explore common mistakes in applying conservation laws in physics problems
USEFUL FOR

Students studying physics, educators teaching energy concepts, and anyone looking to improve their problem-solving skills in mechanics.

kisbester
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A dog takes a running horizontal leap off a 10 m cliff and jumps with a speed of 3 m/s onto a ledge 4 m below the height of the cliff. With what speed does he land on the ledge?

Homework Equations


KEi + PEi = KEf + PEf
1/2mvi2 + mghi = 1/2mvf2 + mghf

The Attempt at a Solution


Attempt #1:

(masses cancel, g ≈ 10m/s2)

1/2(3m/s)2 + (10m/s2)(10m) = 1/2vf2 + (10m/s2)(4m)

1/2(9)+100 = 1/2vf2 + 40

4.5 + 60 = 1/2vf2

2(64.5) = 129 = vf2

[itex]\sqrt{}129[/itex] = vf

vf = 11.36

This is not the correct answer, however, upon looking at the solution the only difference is that they make the original height equal to zero and the final height equal to -4. This of course excludes PE from the first half of the equation. I realize that it would have been simpler for me to do the problem in that way. I don't, however, understand why it doesn't work to do it the way that I did it. Shouldn't it only be the difference in PE that matters? Should the final height have been something different than 4 for my version to work? Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kisbester said:
This is not the correct answer, however, upon looking at the solution the only difference is that they make the original height equal to zero and the final height equal to -4. This of course excludes PE from the first half of the equation. I realize that it would have been simpler for me to do the problem in that way. I don't, however, understand why it doesn't work to do it the way that I did it. Shouldn't it only be the difference in PE that matters? Should the final height have been something different than 4 for my version to work? Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
Your error is thinking that the height of the ledge is 4 m. Note that the ledge is stated to be 4 m below the cliff, not 4 m from the bottom.

If you compare your calculation to the solution given, you'll see that the difference in PE is not the same.

Get the correct height of the ledge and your method is fine.
 
Ugh, thank you so much.
 

Similar threads

Replies
44
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
13K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
55
Views
6K