Force, mass, acceleration, kinetic energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a misunderstanding of kinetic energy calculations in relation to force and mass. A 1kg mass subjected to a 10N force accelerates to approximately 10m/s, resulting in 50 Joules of kinetic energy after one second. In contrast, a 10kg mass under the same force does not achieve the same velocity due to its greater inertia, leading to only 5 Joules of kinetic energy. The key takeaway is that work is defined as force times distance, not force times time, which explains the discrepancy in energy calculations. This highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration in physics.
Low-Q
Gold Member
Messages
283
Reaction score
9
Hi all,

I stumbled into a somewhat odd mathematical problem, so I guess I've overlooked an important detail.
If I have a mass of 1kg on wheels horizontally, and apply 10N of constant force so the mass is accellerating. I assume the velocity of that mass after 1 second is approx 10m/s. Then kinetic energy should be approx 50 Joule. (1/2 (m*v*v)).

Then I have a mass of 10kg on wheels horizontally, and apply 10N of force for one second. Maybe I'm dumb, but it appears to me that the kinetic energy after one second is only 5 Joule. Shouldn't it be 50 Joule?

What have I missed out?

Br. Vidar
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Work is force times distance, not force times time. The 10 kg doesn't move so far in 1 s.

Try the same thing with momentum instead of energy, and surprise yourself :rolleyes: !
 
  • Like
Likes Low-Q and davenn
BvU said:
Work is force times distance, not force times time. The 10 kg doesn't move so far in 1 s.

Try the same thing with momentum instead of energy, and surprise yourself :rolleyes: !
Yeah! Sometimes I stumble in my own brain. Thanks for clearing this up :-)
 
  • Like
Likes Dougias
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top