HELP ~ Mechanical Energy vs Potential Energy & Kinetic Energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the gravitational potential energy, kinetic energy, and mechanical energy of a satellite in a frictionless orbit at 180 km above Earth's surface. The user correctly computes the kinetic energy as 3.0 x 10^10 J and the gravitational potential energy as 1.7 x 10^9 J, leading to a total mechanical energy of 3.0 x 10^11 J. For the final calculation regarding the height the satellite can rise to before losing all kinetic energy, it is suggested that using the average gravitational acceleration of 9.5 m/s² is appropriate. The conversation also touches on using the gravitational formula for more precise calculations, but ultimately confirms that the average value is acceptable for this problem.
Lexington
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
FYI: I'm new here but I'm just about done phys 20, just nearing the end of the course. We're working on calculating Work right now. More specifically calculating Mechanical Energy, Kinetic Energy and Potential Energy. I think I've pretty much got most of the equation solved, it's just one last detail I can't seem to figure out on my own. Now for the problem:

*NONE (ZERO) FRICTION (AKA ISOLATED) SYSTEM*
5. To maintain a circular orbit at a height of 180 km above Earth's surface, a satellite with a mass of 1.0 x 10^3 kg must travel at a constant speed of 7.8 km/s. Using an average value for g of 9.5 m/s^2, calculate the gravitational potential energy of the satellite, its kinetic energy, its mechanical energy, and the height it can rise to before losing all its kinetic energy.

Relevant equations
Ek = 1/2mv^2
Ep = mgh + zero
Em = Ek + Ep

Where:
Ek = Kinetic Energy
Ep = Potential Energy
Em = Mechanical Energy
m = Mass
v = Velocity
g = Gravity
h = Height (distance from Earth's surface)


Here is what I have so far. *IF THERE ARE ANY ERRORS PLEASE LET ME KNOW* Look below to see what I need help with.

h = 180 000m
m = 1.0x10^3kg
v = 7.8x10^3m/s
g = 9.5m/s^2

Ek = 1/2mv^2
= 1/2(1.0*10^3kg)(7.8x10^3m/s)^2
= 30,420,000,000
Ek = 3.0x10^10 J

The Kinetic Energy for the satellite is 3.0x10^10 J.Ep = mgh + zero
= (1.0x10^3kg)(9.5m/s^2)(180000m) + 0
= 1,710,000,000
= 1.7x10^9 J

The Gravitational Potential Energy of the satellite is 1.7x10^9 J.

Em = Ek + Ep
= (3.0x10^10 J) + (1.7x10^9 J)
= 301,700,000,000
= 3.0x10^11 J

The total Mechanical Energy for the satellite is 3.0x10^11 J.

The last part of the question asks for "the height it can rise to before losing all its kinetic energy." Now, I know that when the kinetic energy is 0 the potential energy is equal to the mechanical energy. So this is the incomplete equation I figured:

When Ek = 0
Em = 3.0x10^11 J
m = 1.0x10^3kg
g = ??

Em = Ep
= mgh
h = (Em)/(mg)
= (3.0x10^11J)/[(1.0x10^3kg)(____)

When we go farther away from earth, gravity Decreases. So evidently my input for gravity should be something else, something dependant on the height. So if not this equation, what equation should I use? Or IF this equation, what variable for gravity do I use, 9.5m/s^2?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Lexington and welcome to PF,

Firstly, I want to thank you for submitting such a detailed question and solution.

Secondly, although I haven't checked your arithmetic your methods seem correct.

Thirdly, the question states that you may use an average value for the acceleration due to gravity. Therefore, I would think it was safe to assume that it would be valid to use the averaged value of g in the final part of the question. Your formula is correct.
 
You're welcome =)

And thank you for all that you said. I really appreciate the help.
 
You should use the gravitational formula Fg=G(m1m2)/r2 where G is the gravitational constant of 6.67*10^11, Fg is the force of Gravity so divide by the mass to get acceleration, mass1 is the mass of the earth, mass two is the mass of the satelite, and r^2 is the radius from the center of the Earth squared so you take the Earth's radius and add the height of the satellite then square the sum. That should give you the closest approximation, you can also use that formula to determine escape velocity. Keep in mind the error due to air resistance and terminal velocity, but that is not important until calculus.
 
never mind what I said the 9.5m/s^2 is what they expect you to use.
 
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top