Conservation of Mechanical Energy

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem related to the conservation of mechanical energy in the context of a pendulum-like amusement park ride. The specific question involves determining the speed required at the lowest point of the swing to reach the highest point without any residual speed, given the diameter of the circular path.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the conservation of energy principles, questioning the necessity of mass in the calculations. The original poster expresses confusion over the lack of given values and seeks guidance on how to approach the problem.

Discussion Status

Some participants have suggested that mass can be treated as a variable and may not be needed for the final calculations. There is acknowledgment of a specific numerical answer, but the focus remains on understanding the underlying principles rather than confirming the solution.

Contextual Notes

The original poster notes the challenge posed by the problem compared to previous ones, indicating a potential gap in understanding the application of conservation of energy in this scenario.

Luca169
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] Conservation of Mechanical Energy

Homework Statement



A ride at a generic amusement park starts off by swinging like a simple pendulum until its amplitude becomes so great that it swings completely around. If the diameter of the circle is 30.0 m, what speed must the ship have at very bottom to just make it to the highest point and sit there with no residual speed.

So far, all I know is that the diameter of the circle is 30 m.


Homework Equations



I don't know how to use the fancy Latex thing to produce my equations, but I'll try my best without it.

Mi = Mf (Mechanical Energy, initial and final)
Mi = Ug + Ki (Mf would be equal to Ug + Kf)
Ug = m * g * h (Potential gravitational energy)
Ki = m*Vi^2 / 2 (Kf would be equal to m*Vf^2 / 2)

These are what I think, or rather have been using to solve the other problems associated with this problem in this particular section (Conservation of Mechanical Energy)


The Attempt at a Solution



I really don't know where to start, the lack of givens is confusing me. Perhaps, if I had the mass of the ship, then I could figure out the potential gravitational energy, and then find then kinetic energy equivalent, and then find the speed from there by rearranging the last equation I gave in part two. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. This is the last problem in the section, and seems to be the most challenging, as I had no problems with the preceding problems.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You may not need the mass. Set up the conservation of energy equation for this problem, leaving mass just as a variable. You should not need the mass. Do you see why?
 
Not exactly, so I would set say x as the mass, and continue on from there?

Apparently, there is a definite answer to this problem, the answer being 24.2 m/s. :|

After plugging x into the equation, I did indeed get 24.2 m/s as my answer. Is this procedure correct?

I replicated my steps here..Ug = mgh
Ug = x kg * 9.8 m/s * 30 m
Ug = x * 294

Mf = x * 294
Mf = m*Vf^2/2
X * 294 = x * Vf^2 / 2
2x * 588 = x * Vf^2
x * 588/x = Vf^2
Vf = √588
Vf = 24.2 m/s
 
Last edited:
Luca169 said:
Not exactly, so I would set say x as the mass, and continue on from there?
Yes, let mass just be a variable. Personally, I'd choose m, for mass, as the variable, but x works too.

Apparently, there is a definite answer to this problem, the answer being 24.2 m/s. :|

Set up the equation for conservation of energy between the starting point and the end point, and you should see that you shouldn't need the mass. Once you do this, can you tell me why you don't need the mass?
 
Last edited:
I think you don't need the mass because when you are determining the final speed, you will divide by the mass, which you multiplied by when finding the gravitational potential energy, so they will cancel out?
 
Exactly!:smile:

So, did you get the correct, answer, or is there something else confusing you?
 
No

No, I got the right answer, thanks again!
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
4K