Conservation of energy for toy gun

AI Thread Summary
In a spring-loaded toy gun scenario, mechanical energy is conserved because no nonconservative forces, such as air resistance, act on the ball after it is released. The gravitational potential energy of the ball is calculated using mgh, while the spring's potential energy is given by 1/2 k x^2. The maximum height the ball reaches can be derived from the energy stored in the spring. The spring's potential energy is proportional to the square of its compression distance and inversely related to gravitational effects. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding potential energy in relation to both the spring and gravitational forces.
WY
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
I've been reading about a situation on the conservation of energy:
A spring-loaded toy gun is used to shoot a ball of mass m straight up in the air. View Figure The spring has spring constant k. If the spring is compressed a distance x_0 from its equilibrium position and then released, the ball reaches a maximum height h_max (measured from the equilibrium position of the spring). There is no air resistance, and the ball never touches the inside of the gun. Assume x_o is greater than h

Now my question to this is that:
Is mechanical energy conserved because no nonconservative forces perform work on the ball and do nonconservative forces act in this situation after the ball is released at all? and do the forces of gravity and the spring have potential energies associated with them?

As you can tell I don't really have a great grasp on these concepts, so would anyone like to enlighten me please? thanks so much!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
WY said:
Now my question to this is that:
Is mechanical energy conserved because no nonconservative forces perform work on the ball and do nonconservative forces act in this situation after the ball is released at all?
No nonconservative forces act on the ball at any time (in this problem). That's why they specify "There is no air resistance, and the ball never touches the inside of the gun."; those would be nonconservative forces.

and do the forces of gravity and the spring have potential energies associated with them?
Absolutely. Gravitational potential energy (near the Earth's surface) is given by mgh, where "h" is height measured from some arbitrary reference point. Spring potential energy is given by 1/2 k x^2, where x is the displacement from the unstretched position.
 
so, h,max=(1/2)kx^2/gm
look closely at this equation and it will make sense to you!
the stiffer the spring the larger the "k" the more energy the spring has when it is compressed, and the higher the ball will go for a given x the distance the spring is compressed! A springs potential energy stored is proportional [1/2 k] to its distance compressed squared.
and inversely proportional to both the Earth's gravitational constant and the mass of the object shot up!

this should make some sense, right?

love and peace,
and,
peace and love,
(kirk) kirk gregory czuhai
http://www.altelco.net/~lovekgc/kirksresume.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kirk,

"A springs potential energy stored is proportional [1/2 k] to its distance compressed squared. and inversely proportional to both the Earth's gravitational constant and the mass of the object shot up! this should make some sense, right?"

Actually no.

What does "the Earth's gravitational constant" or "the mass of the object shot up" have to do with a spring's potential energy?
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top