Horizontal Plane With Friction And Incline Plane With no Friction

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving a body moving along a horizontal plane with friction and then transitioning to an inclined plane without friction. The participants explore concepts related to kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy, and the effects of friction on motion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the calculation of final velocity on the horizontal plane and its relation to the height climbed on the incline. There are attempts to apply energy conservation principles and questions about the necessity of finding velocity.

Discussion Status

The discussion has progressed with participants providing guidance on using energy conservation to relate kinetic energy and potential energy. There is recognition of different approaches to the problem, with some participants suggesting simpler methods for calculation.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of a homework assignment, which may limit the information available and the methods they can use. There is an emphasis on understanding the relationships between forces, energy, and motion without reaching a definitive conclusion.

amgoda
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
1. A body with mass m = 5 kg and initial velocity = 5 m/s moves along a horizontal plane with length 10 m, where the friction coefficient is μ=0.1, After passing the part with friction, the body moves up along a tilted plane which has no friction. What is the maximum height of body elevation along the tilted plane?

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/15/physicso.png/

i tired to get the final velocity before it goes up the inclined plane and got (2.32) but i think i got it wrong
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You should really show how you got 2.32m/s. And no, you didn't get it wrong. But you never really needed to find the velocity. What you needed to find is the kinetic energy before it goes up the ramp. How is that related to the height it climbs?
 
alright .. here is how i thought about it ..
N=mg
Fκ=μk.N
a=(μk.mg)/-m=-.98m/s^s
vf^2=V0+2a(x-x0)
vf^2=5^2+(2*-.98*10)= 2.32
and i thought that the final velocity on the horizontal plane is the initial velocity for the inclined plane ..
 
amgoda said:
alright .. here is how i thought about it ..
N=mg
Fκ=μk.N
a=(μk.mg)/-m=-.98m/s^s
vf^2=V0+2a(x-x0)
vf^2=5^2+(2*-.98*10)= 2.32
and i thought that the final velocity on the horizontal plane is the initial velocity for the inclined plane ..

That is perfectly fine. I don't think it's the most economical route to the answer but you are doing very well. But now how do you use the initial velocity up the ramp to find the height you climb?
 
that's the problem .. i just got to this point and i don't know what to do afterwards ...
btw thanks for the fast replies
 
amgoda said:
that's the problem .. i just got to this point and i don't know what to do afterwards ...
btw thanks for the fast replies

Do you know how to use energy conservation to do it? Gravitational potential energy at a height h up the ramp is mgh. That must be equal to the kinetic energy you started with. Yes?
 
ahaa .. so it should equal to the kinetic energy at the end of the horizontal plane .. so will it be .5*m*v^2=mgh .5*5*2.32^2=5*9.8*h
h=0.63 meters ?
 
amgoda said:
ahaa .. so it should equal to the kinetic energy at the end of the horizontal plane .. so will it be .5*m*v^2=mgh .5*5*2.32^2=5*9.8*h
h=0.63 meters ?

Exactly, except I don't get h=0.63m. Can you try that once more? And think about whether you really needed to find v at all. You just need the KE at the start of the ramp. Can you think of a simpler way to find that?
 
Last edited:
ahaaa .. here we go .. i don't know why i haven't thought of this
Wnet=μk.mg.Δx = change in KE
then KE at the bottom = 13.5 =mgh
h= .027
and i recalculated H in the First method i used and i got 0.27 also ..
thanks a lot u drew my attention to the easier way .. thanks
 
  • #10
amgoda said:
ahaaa .. here we go .. i don't know why i haven't thought of this
Wnet=μk.mg.Δx = change in KE
then KE at the bottom = 13.5 =mgh
h= .027
and i recalculated H in the First method i used and i got 0.27 also ..
thanks a lot u drew my attention to the easier way .. thanks

Very welcome. Energy conservation is often the easy way to go. And both are h=0.27, right?
 
  • #11
yup.. i just messed up in the first calculation
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
3K