Kinetic and gravitational energy

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating kinetic and gravitational energy for an object at a height of 15 m traveling at 25 m/s. Participants are exploring the relationship between mass, speed, and energy in the context of conservation of energy principles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand how to calculate kinetic energy without knowing the mass of the object. Some participants question the necessity of mass in the calculations and suggest that it may be possible to solve the problem generically.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, with some offering insights into the nature of energy conservation and the potential irrelevance of mass in certain calculations. There is a recognition that the problem may be solvable despite the missing mass information, and multiple interpretations of the problem are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express concerns about the clarity of the problem statement and the implications of mass on kinetic energy calculations. There is a mention of an upcoming exam, indicating a time constraint for the original poster.

msimard8
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Q: An object at a height of 15 m above the ground is traveling at 25m/s. Find its

a) kinetic energy
b) gravitational energy

If I find out how to do (a), I am sure I will figure out B. The problem is I don't know how to figure out (a)

I know that Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mass (speed)^2

I also know that work = (change of kinetic energy)

Both these formulas involve masses. How do you solve?

I do know that masses cancel out when you are dealing with the law of conservation of energy, but I am only determining the energy at this specific point. Help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In my humble opinion this exercise is not well elaborated. For what I know and it's logic, an object of 100 kg at a height of 15 m above the ground traveling at 25m/s has more kinetic energy than other of 3 kg at the same situation (the kinetic energy formula shows that very clear). In order to calculate his kinetic energy you must know is mass. In any case, I think you must have to admit that the mass of the object is 1 kg. Check the solutions.

PS- As i said this is a modest opinion, wait for the experts.
 
thnx

thanks for your opinion

i still think its solvable though. I will wait for the experts.
 
Last edited:
I really don't understand. I have an exam tomorrow.

My recent thought processes include

ET= ek + eg
= 1/2mv^2 + mgh

but how is that possible.. you need a mass?
HELP
 
In physics courses, "solving a problem" does not always (in fact rarely) means getting a number.

Even when you're given all the necessary numbers to get a numeric result, you'll generally want to first solve it as generically as possible. Only then do you plug in the numbers.

Just use the information you were given to solve it as much as much as you can. Often times, the information you weren't given turns out to be irrelevant (mathematically, terms might cancel).

With the information you gave and assuming ideal situations (in a vacuum, etc), we can say the only force is that of gravity, and the energy is conserved.
So we can look at the system at two different times:
1) When the object is at h=15m with v=25m/s, and
2) When the object hits the ground.

This is helpful because when the object is at ground-level, we know its potential (gravitational) energy is zero, and the total energy is equal to the kinetic energy.
Solve for its kinetic energy when it hits the ground, and you have an expression for total energy that contains a mass. Now this will cancel out the m's in the original kinetic and potential energy expressions.

However, you need to know the direction of the velocity in its initial state. If the object is traveling up or down at 25m/s initially, it's a 1 dimensional problem. If it's traveling in any other direction, it's a 2 dimensional problem.

Hope this helps. I've been awake for far too long, so if anything doesn't make sense.. please ask. ;)

--
Edit: made things a little clearer.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K