How to Estimate Work Done from a Graph?

AI Thread Summary
To estimate the work done by the Moon's gravitational pull on a lunar lander, the area under the force versus distance graph must be calculated. The initial approach of multiplying the average force by distance was incorrect, as the force varies and does not go to zero at the surface. A more accurate method involves calculating the area under the curve, considering both the varying force and the distance traveled. The final estimate of work done is approximately 672 kJ, acknowledging that the curve's non-linear nature may lead to slight overestimation. Understanding the graph's behavior is crucial for accurate work estimation.
Jimmy87
Messages
692
Reaction score
19

Homework Statement


Hi,

I am stuck with the following question:

The graph (attached) shows how the Moon's gravitational pull F on a lunar lander varies with the distance 'h' from the Moon's surface. Estimate the work done by the pull of the Moon on the lunar lander as it approaches the lunar surface from a height of 200km. Explain how you made your estimate.

Homework Equations


Work done = force x distance

The Attempt at a Solution


I know that work = force x distance so I was thinking of the calculating the area under the graph but I don't think this will work as this would involve multiplying 0.88kN by 200m x 0.5 and that just can't be right because the average force has got to be somewhere between 3.6 and 2.92kN. Why doesn't this work though as I thought that finding the area under a graph involves multiplying the y-axis by the x-axis which in this case would be force x distance which is work?
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
You have to consider that the area should go down to zero, while your graph does not. Imagine an extension of the graph down to 0.
 
mfb said:
You have to consider that the area should go down to zero, while your graph does not. Imagine an extension of the graph down to 0.
Thanks. I still don't understand though. Extension on what axis? The force at 200km is about 2.92kN and at the surface (0m) is 3.6kN so how can anything go down to zero?
 
mfb said:
You have to consider that the area should go down to zero, while your graph does not. Imagine an extension of the graph down to 0.

Actually I think I see what you mean now. The force at 200m away is 2.92kN so if the force remained at this value for the 200km then you would just multiply these two numbers but since it increase do you add this value to the value underneath the curve which would be 0.88kN x 200 x 0.5. So the total sum would be:

(2.92kN x 200) + (0.88kN x 200 x 0.5) = 584 + 88 = 672kJ (I think these are the correct units)

Is this the correct answer?
 
Kilometers, not meters.
Apart from that: yes, that works.

The curve is not completely linear so you overestimate the work a bit.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging 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