How does external work affect the height of a bowling ball when pushed?

AI Thread Summary
When a bowling ball is pushed from an initial height, it can rise higher than its starting position due to the work done on it, which adds kinetic energy. The Law of Conservation of Energy indicates that the initial potential energy and kinetic energy must equal the final potential and kinetic energy, minus any energy lost. If the ball is pushed with sufficient force, it can reach a maximum height where all kinetic energy converts to potential energy. The formula for maximum height incorporates both the initial height and the velocity imparted by the push. Ultimately, the energy from the push must exceed the energy required to return to the original height for the ball to rise higher.
Chris914
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
Ok so when one drops a bowling ball hanging from a rope, it won't come back and smack him in the face. This I can understand, due to potential energy of gravity and conservation of energy. However when someone pushes the bowling ball, how can you show that it will rise higher than the original height and hit the person in the face? Is there a Work external or is it the Kinetic Energy starting out the Work-Energy Theorem?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Law of Conservation of Energy

If you push a bowling ball of mass m from some initial height, hi, so that it starts out with some initial velocity, v, then, applying the Law of Conservation of Energy, we have: PEi + KEi = PEf + KEf, or equivalently: mghi + (1/2)mvi2 = mghf + (1/2)mvf2 + E"lost". If we neglect air drag, we can discard the E"lost" term.

We want to know what's happening when the bowling ball returns to you at hi, so our initial and final states are both taken to be at height hi, the height from which it was pushed.

mghi + (1/2)mvi2 = mghi + (1/2)mvf2

Subtracting the gravitational potential energy from both states reveals that the kinetic energy of the bowling ball as it returns to you is the same as that when it leaves your hands, so it will hit you at the same speed you pushed it.

You may wonder how high the bowling ball would swing if you managed to get out of its way. To solve this, acknowledge that the bowling ball's maximum height, hmax, is attained when all of its energy is in the form of gravitational potential energy, with no kinetic energy remaining. So, mghi + (1/2)mvi2 = mghmax. Dividing both sides by m, we have ghi + (1/2)vi2 = ghmax. To get a nice expression for hmax, divide both sides by g, and then multiply both the top and bottom of the resulting expression by 2, yielding hmax = (2ghi + vi2)/(2g).
 
Thank you so much, this was a great help.
 
Welcome to PF;
Looks a lot like homework to me - so you are lucky that someone was prepared to do all that work for you.
The short answer is that the energy added from the push has to be higher than the energy shortfall from what is needed to bounce back to the right height.
 
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...
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top