How to find the energy of an object that was at rest?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the kinetic energy of a rocket that was initially at rest after it has been connected to a moving rocket. The kinetic energy of the moving rocket increases by 4%, leading to the conclusion that the kinetic energy of the second rocket can be expressed as ##E_k=(0.0004)E_0##, where ##E_0## is the initial energy of the moving rocket. The participants utilized the kinetic energy formula ##E_k=\frac{1}{2}mv^2## and the principle of momentum conservation to derive the final equations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of kinetic energy formula: ##E_k=\frac{1}{2}mv^2##
  • Knowledge of momentum conservation principles
  • Basic algebra for manipulating equations
  • Familiarity with the concept of energy increase in physical systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of momentum conservation in rocket propulsion systems
  • Learn about the relationship between kinetic energy and velocity changes
  • Explore the derivation of energy equations in terms of initial energy values
  • Investigate the effects of mass and velocity on kinetic energy calculations
USEFUL FOR

Students in physics, particularly those studying mechanics and energy conservation, as well as educators looking for practical examples of kinetic energy and momentum principles in action.

  • #31
haruspex said:
No, 1.0198 would not be abbreviated to 1.012.
Then what would it be?
haruspex said:
and even if it were, subtracting 1 does not yield 0.12.
Yes sorry, I meant 0.012.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Davidllerenav said:
Then what would it be?
You will kick yourself when you realize the error you are making.
Repeatedly increment the final nonzero digit of 1.0198 until there are only two decimal places.
 
  • #33
haruspex said:
Repeatedly increment the final nonzero digit of 1.0198 until there are only two decimal places.
Oh, I think I see it know, would it be 1.02?
 
  • #34
Davidllerenav said:
Oh, I think I see it know, would it be 1.02?
Yes.
 
  • #35
haruspex said:
Yes.
So ##\Delta v=0.02## and the kinetic energy of the second rocket, the one that was at rest is ##E_k=m\Delta v^2= m(0.02)^2v_0^2##? Is t right?
 
  • #36
Davidllerenav said:
Ek=mΔv2
Not quite... you forgot a factor.
 
  • #37
haruspex said:
Not quite... you forgot a factor.
Oh, yes the ##\frac{1}{2}##, so it is ##E_k=\frac{1}{2}m\Delta v##.
 
  • #38
Davidllerenav said:
Oh, yes the ##\frac{1}{2}##, so it is ##E_k=\frac{1}{2}m\Delta v##.
Now you forgot the square.
 
  • #39
haruspex said:
Now you forgot the square.
Sorry... ##E_k=\frac{1}{2}m(\Delta v)^2= \frac{1}{2}m(0.02)^2v_0^2=\frac{1}{2}m(0.004)v_0^2##. It think it is correct know.
 
  • #40
Davidllerenav said:
Sorry... ##E_k=\frac{1}{2}m(\Delta v)^2= \frac{1}{2}m(0.02)^2v_0^2=\frac{1}{2}m(0.004)v_0^2##. It think it is correct know.
I'm sorry to say that's another arithmetic error.
 
  • #41
haruspex said:
I'm sorry to say that's another arithmetic error.
I see, I made a mistake when I squared 0.02, it is 0.0004, not 0.004. so ##E_k=\frac{1}{2}m(0.0004)v_0^2.
 
  • #42
Davidllerenav said:
I see, I made a mistake when I squared 0.02, it is 0.0004, not 0.004. so ##E_k=\frac{1}{2}m(0.0004)v_0^2##.
Right. And you can simplify slightly combining the 1/2 with the 4.
 
  • #43
haruspex said:
Right. And you can simplify slightly combining the 1/2 with the 4.
Yes, so simplifying I end up with ##E_k=m(0.0002)v_0^2##. And that's all, right?
 
  • #44
Davidllerenav said:
Yes, so simplifying I end up with ##E_k=m(0.0002)v_0^2##. And that's all, right?
Perfect.
 
  • #45
haruspex said:
Perfect.
Ok, thanks. I don't need to write the equations of the momentum of both rocket, do I?
 
  • #46
Davidllerenav said:
Ok, thanks. I don't need to write the equations of the momentum of both rocket, do I?
No, you already used that.
 
  • Like
Likes Davidllerenav
  • #47
haruspex said:
No, you already used that.
Ok, thank you so much for your help.
 
  • #48
Davidllerenav said:
Yes, so simplifying I end up with ##E_k=m(0.0002)v_0^2##. And that's all, right?
There is a problem with this result. Neither ##m## nor ##v_0## are given in the problem description. Instead, what is given is ##E_0##, the initial energy of the moving rocket.

Can you express the result you have in terms of ##E_0## rather than in terms of ##m## and ##v_0##?
 
  • Like
Likes haruspex
  • #49
jbriggs444 said:
There is a problem with this result. Neither ##m## nor ##v_0## are given in the problem description. Instead, what is given is ##E_0##, the initial energy of the moving rocket.

Can you express the result you have in terms of ##E_0## rather than in terms of ##m## and ##v_0##?
Well, since ##E_0=\frac{1}{2}m v_0^2##, I think I can express the result as ##E_k=(0.0004)E_0## right?
 
  • Like
Likes jbriggs444
  • #50
Davidllerenav said:
Well, since ##E_0=\frac{1}{2}m v_0^2##, I think I can express the result as ##E_k=(0.0004)E_0## right?
Yes, that is what I get as well.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
983
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
55
Views
5K