Is a 300hp Engine Necessary for Driving Within Speed Limits?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sheneron
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Conceptual Work
AI Thread Summary
A discussion revolves around the necessity of a 300hp engine for driving within speed limits, specifically questioning the validity of a car salesman's claim when a 130hp engine suffices for speeds up to 65 mph. The original poster expresses uncertainty about how to counter the sales pitch conceptually, acknowledging that mathematical arguments may not apply. Additionally, there is a request for information regarding the origins of the work-kinetic energy theorem and its practical applications, with the poster noting difficulty in finding this information despite extensive research. The conversation highlights a blend of automotive performance considerations and foundational physics principles. Overall, the thread seeks clarity on both automotive power needs and historical physics concepts.
Sheneron
Messages
360
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I am having some trouble coming up with an answer to a couple of conceptual problems.

1. A car salesman claims that a souped-up 300hp engine is a necessary option in a compact car, in place of the conventional 130hp engine. Suppose you intend to drive the car within speed limits <= 65 mph. How would you counter this sales pitch?

-Im not really sure what to say. The math could be done to show why it is unnecessary, but this is a conceptual questions so I don't suppose that would work.

2. Who first stated the work-kinetic energy theorem? Who showed that it is useful for solving many practical problems? Do some research to answer these questions.

-The research has already been did, and I can't find out either of these.

Any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nevermind about the first one.

But does anyone know who first stated the work-kinetic energy theorem, and who showed its usefulness?

I have looked al ot of places but I am having no luck.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...

Similar threads

Back
Top