Energy and roller coaster question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the height of the initial hill of a roller coaster using conservation of energy principles. The user initially attempts to apply the formulas for potential and kinetic energy but struggles to arrive at a logical answer. After some guidance, they realize that their equation should include a positive sign instead of a negative, reflecting the conservation of energy correctly. The corrected approach leads to a more accurate understanding of the relationship between the heights and speeds involved. Ultimately, the importance of correctly applying energy conservation principles is emphasized in solving such problems.
enapper
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
A roller coaster starts at height (h). It goes down this hill and then goes up a second hill that is at a height of 28.5 m at a speed of 15.8 m/s. How high was the initial hill?


Given equations:
U=mgh
KE=1/2mv^2
W=Fd
P=W/T



Honestly, we've never done a problem like this before and I'm unsure how to solve it. I know potential energy is at it's highest point at the peak of the first hill and that energy is always conserved, so I said mgh(1)-1/2mv^2(1)=mgh(2)-1/2mv^2, but I didn't get a logical answer. Can anyone help me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
welcome to pf!

hi enapper! welcome to pf! :smile:

(try using the X2 and X2 icons just above the Reply box :wink:)

your formula should work …

show us your full calculations, and then we'll see what went wrong :smile:
 
Thanks!

mgh=mgh(2)-1/2mv^2(2)

I canceled out the mass because it should be the same throughout the equation and no mass is given, leaving me with:
gh=gh(sub2)-1/2v^2(sub2)

(9.8)(h)=(9.8)(28.5)-(1/2)(15.8)^2

9.8h=279.3-124.82

h=154.48/9.8

h=15.76

This answer seems illogical, though, because normally the cart would not be able to exceed the initial height, and the second hill is much higher than 15.76m.
 
oh, on second thoughts your formula was wrong …

it should have a + not a - …

conservation of energy is KE + PE = constant :wink:
 
That makes sense. "The whole is equal to the sum of the parts" sort of thing.
Thanks a million!
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanged mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top