Easy Conservation of Energy (Skiing)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the physics of a skier descending from two peaks at elevations of 3500 m and 3400 m, with a ski-run length of 3000 m. The skier's speed upon reaching the lower peak is calculated using the conservation of energy principle, yielding a speed of 44.27 m/s. The formula applied is v = sqrt(2g(h1-h2)), where g represents gravitational acceleration. The length of the slope is deemed irrelevant due to the assumption of neglecting friction.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy
  • Familiarity with the conservation of energy principle
  • Basic knowledge of physics equations involving acceleration due to gravity (g)
  • Ability to perform algebraic manipulations and solve equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of friction on skiing dynamics
  • Explore advanced applications of conservation of energy in different sports
  • Learn about the effects of slope angle on speed and energy conservation
  • Investigate real-world factors affecting skiing performance, such as snow conditions
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, skiing enthusiasts, and anyone interested in the application of energy conservation principles in sports dynamics.

TwinGemini14
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Two snow-covered peaks at elevations of 3500 m and 3400 m are separated by a valley. A ski-run having a total length of 3000 m extends from the top of the higher peak to the top of the lower one. A skier starts from rest on the higher peak. With what speed will the skier arrive at the topof the lower peak if she glides down the hill as fast as possible without any initial push? Neglect friction.

----
h1 = 3500 m
h2 = 3400 m

mgh1 = 0.5mv^2 + mgh2
gh1 = 0.5v^2 + gh2

v = sqrt(2g(h1-h2))
v = 44.27 m/s
---------------
Can anybody verify this with me? It looks good to me, but I did not use the information that the slope was 3000 m long. Is this unneccessary information or did I do something wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
TwinGemini14 said:
It looks good to me, but I did not use the information that the slope was 3000 m long. Is this unneccessary information or did I do something wrong?

"Neglect friction."

That renders the length irrelevant.

Looks OK to me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
3K