Determing Height To Which A Projectile Will Rise

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves determining the maximum height a projectile will reach when launched straight up at a speed of 9.6 km/s from the Earth's surface, while ignoring air resistance and Earth's rotation. The context is rooted in the conservation of mechanical energy.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the conservation of mechanical energy, questioning the values of kinetic and potential energy at different points in the projectile's trajectory. There is uncertainty about whether the final kinetic energy (K_f) is zero at the maximum height and how potential energy (U_f) is defined in this context.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations of energy concepts and the implications of setting potential energy to zero at various reference points. Some participants have offered alternative methods for solving the problem, while others are questioning the assumptions made regarding energy values.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted ambiguity regarding the definitions of kinetic and potential energy, particularly in relation to the projectile's position above or below the Earth's surface. Additionally, the assumption of constant gravitational acceleration at high altitudes is being questioned.

Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


At the Earth's surface, a projectile is launched straight up at a speed of 9.6 km/s. To what height will it rise? Ignore air resistance and the rotation of the Earth.


Homework Equations


Conservation of mechanical energy [itex]K_i + U_i = K_f + U_f[/itex]


The Attempt at a Solution


I am quite confident that I chose the correct formula to solve this problem; however, I have a few questions regarding the formula itself.

I know that [itex]K_i[/itex] and [itex]U_i[/itex] won't be zero, because the projectile has an initial velocity and it is above the surface of the earth. Would [itex]K_f[/itex] be zero, though; because we are considering the highest point the projectile will reach, and gravity will necessary reduce its speed to zero, corresponding to the highest point. Because [itex]K_f = 0[/itex], [itex]U_f[/itex] can't equal zero, right? What would the situation be like if it was negative, how about positive?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bashyboy said:

Homework Statement


At the Earth's surface, a projectile is launched straight up at a speed of 9.6 km/s. To what height will it rise? Ignore air resistance and the rotation of the Earth.


Homework Equations


Conservation of mechanical energy [itex]K_i + U_i = K_f + U_f[/itex]


The Attempt at a Solution


I am quite confident that I chose the correct formula to solve this problem; however, I have a few questions regarding the formula itself.

I know that [itex]K_i[/itex] and [itex]U_i[/itex] won't be zero, because the projectile has an initial velocity and it is above the surface of the earth. Would [itex]K_f[/itex] be zero, though; because we are considering the highest point the projectile will reach, and gravity will necessary reduce its speed to zero, corresponding to the highest point. Because [itex]K_f = 0[/itex], [itex]U_f[/itex] can't equal zero, right? What would the situation be like if it was negative, how about positive?

There seems to be a contradiction in the two pieces I have shaded red.

Energy is a scalar - so is neither positive nor negative. That makes your final sentence rather curious.
 
PeterO said:
Energy is a scalar - so is neither positive nor negative.
Last time I checked, scalars had signs.
 
Bashyboy said:
I know that [itex]K_i[/itex] and [itex]U_i[/itex] won't be zero, because the projectile has an initial velocity and it is above the surface of the earth.
Only differences between potential energies have physical meaning, so the zero point is arbitrary; you can set the potential energy to zero at any convenient point.
Would [itex]K_f[/itex] be zero, though; because we are considering the highest point the projectile will reach, and gravity will necessary reduce its speed to zero, corresponding to the highest point.
Well, would it?
 
tms said:
Well, would it?

If had the knowledge to answer your question, then I wouldn't have asked my question in the first place.
 
PeterO said:
There seems to be a contradiction in the two pieces I have shaded red.

Yes, I suppose I can see how the ambiguity could arise. What I intended for the statement, "..it is above the surface of the earth," was that the projectile wasn't below the the surface, that is, underground.
 
Bashyboy said:
Yes, I suppose I can see how the ambiguity could arise. What I intended for the statement, "..it is above the surface of the earth," was that the projectile wasn't below the the surface, that is, underground.

Above the surface and below the surface represent only 2 of the 3 possibilities for the projectile's original position.

The opening words referred to that 3rd possibility.
 
Bashyboy said:
If had the knowledge to answer your question, then I wouldn't have asked my question in the first place.
Surely you have enough knowledge by now to say what the kinetic energy of an object with zero velocity is.
 
If you really don't know how to calculate kinetic energy, rather than using energy, you could solve this problem with the basic [itex]h(t)= h_0+ v_0t- (g/2)t^2[/itex].

You can take [itex]h_0[/itex] to be 0 at the surface of the Earth and you are given that [itex]v_0= 9.6[/itex]. Of course, g= 9.82 m/s^2, approximately.
 
  • #10
HallsofIvy said:
If you really don't know how to calculate kinetic energy, rather than using energy, you could solve this problem with the basic [itex]h(t)= h_0+ v_0t- (g/2)t^2[/itex].

You can take [itex]h_0[/itex] to be 0 at the surface of the Earth and you are given that [itex]v_0= 9.6[/itex]. Of course, g= 9.82 m/s^2, approximately.

Given the initial velocity of 9.6 km/s this mass is going to rise more than 4000 km. It may not be reasonable to assume that g has a constant value to that elevation.

You probably need a potential energy formula like U = -GMm/R
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
5K