Gravitation potential energy without hieght

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the change in gravitational potential energy (PE) for a skateboarder who experiences both positive and negative work due to his actions and friction. The skateboarder, weighing 55.5 kg, starts with an initial speed of 1.75 m/s and ends with a speed of 5.90 m/s after doing +80.0 J of work and experiencing -265 J of friction. Participants suggest using the work-energy theorem and conservation of energy principles to find the net work done and subsequently the change in PE. The formula for gravitational work, -mgh, is highlighted as essential for determining the height change, even when direct height values are not available. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationship between work, kinetic energy, and potential energy in solving the problem.
ncote
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
1.
A 55.5 kg skateboarder starts out with a speed of 1.75 m/s. He does +80.0 J of work on himself by pushing with his feet against the ground. In addition, friction does -265 J of work on him. In both cases, the forces doing the work are nonconservative. The final speed of the skateboarder is 5.90 m/s.
(a) Calculate the change (PE = PEf - PE0) in the gravitational potential energy.




i also have to calculate the change in the vertical hieght. i have absolutely no clue how to do this without h...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ncote said:
1.
A 55.5 kg skateboarder starts out with a speed of 1.75 m/s. He does +80.0 J of work on himself by pushing with his feet against the ground. In addition, friction does -265 J of work on him. In both cases, the forces doing the work are nonconservative. The final speed of the skateboarder is 5.90 m/s.
(a) Calculate the change (PE = PEf - PE0) in the gravitational potential energy.




i also have to calculate the change in the vertical hieght. i have absolutely no clue how to do this without h...
You might want to consider the work energy theorem W_c + W_{nc} = \Delta KEand go from there, if you're familar with it.
 
i got W using (1/2)(m)(vf^2)-(1/2)(m)(vo^2). not sure where to go from here.
 
ncote said:
i got W using (1/2)(m)(vf^2)-(1/2)(m)(vo^2). not sure where to go from here.
Correct, that's the total (or net) work done. Some of that work is the work done by the non conservative forces, which is given. The rest is the work done by conservative forces, which is the gravity force in this case. Work done by gravity is just -mgh. If this equation is confusing to you, perhaps you should instead use the conservation of total energy equation, which is W_{nc} = \Delta KE + \Delta PE, which might be a bit easier to understand.
 
i got it!

i used W-Wnc=Wc and got the correct answer for the change

for the hieght i just did W-Wnc/mg.
 
I was looking at the different formulas and stuff for this, and I'm stuck too, especially when I have taken the formula -Ffrd= (1/2)mvf^2-(1/2)mvi^2+mgyfinal-mgyinitial. I seriously am stuck on how to solve for the change in gravitational potential energy without the the final y-value or even distance.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top