Kinetic and gravitational potential energy

AI Thread Summary
The kinetic energy of the skier at the bottom of the hill is not equal to the gravitational potential energy at the top due to energy losses, primarily from friction. While gravitational potential energy (GPE) is often defined relative to a reference point, in this case, the bottom of the hill can be considered as zero GPE. The skier's kinetic energy (KE) is affected by these losses, which convert some energy into thermal energy rather than being fully converted to kinetic energy. This discussion highlights the importance of considering energy transformations and losses in mechanical systems. Understanding these concepts is crucial for accurately analyzing energy dynamics in physics.
pbonnie
Messages
92
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Explain why the kinetic energy of the skier at the bottom of the hill is not equal to the gravitational potential energy of the skier at the top of the hill.


Homework Equations


n/a


The Attempt at a Solution


I think the answer is because the bottom of the hill is not at surface level, and therefore there is still gravitational potential energy. I just wanted to double check and make sure I'm not missing anything.
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
pbonnie said:

Homework Statement


Explain why the kinetic energy of the skier at the bottom of the hill is not equal to the gravitational potential energy of the skier at the top of the hill.


Homework Equations


n/a


The Attempt at a Solution


I think the answer is because the bottom of the hill is not at surface level, and therefore there is still gravitational potential energy. I just wanted to double check and make sure I'm not missing anything.
Thanks!

I don't think that is the answer. If you define the GPE to be zero at the bottom of the hill and the skier starts from rest there, what else would keep the KE from being equal to all of the GPE when the skier reaches the bottom of the hill?
 
Potential energy is almost always a relative matter. I.e. it's the difference between two energy levels, rather than an absolute measure. (Sometimes the PE at infinity is considered zero, so the PE anywhere else is negative. This is commonly used in cosmological contexts.)
This makes the question a little unclear. You have interpreted it as taking zero PE to be at the centre of the Earth, right? Possibly, but I doubt that's what's intended. Why might the skier's KE not equal the difference in PE between top and bottom?
 
Oh okay. So does that mean that there is another kind of energy contributing to the total energy? So the kinetic energy is not equal because some of the energy was lost to thermal energy?
 
pbonnie said:
Oh okay. So does that mean that there is another kind of energy contributing to the total energy? So the kinetic energy is not equal because some of the energy was lost to thermal energy?

Yes. What caused that loss?
 
Friction?
 
pbonnie said:
Friction?

Bingo!
 
Great, thank you both very much!
 

Similar threads

Energy calculations for a skier on a hill
Replies
6
Views
6K
Using Momentum, KE and PE to solve this skier velocity problem
Replies
13
Views
3K
Expression for magnitude of the constant friction force
Replies
7
Views
1K
Conservation of Momentum Problem - Mechanical and Kinetic Energies
Replies
2
Views
958
Loop problem with skier on ramp going into a loop-the-loop
Replies
13
Views
2K
Misunderstanding of Gravitational Potential Energy
Replies
7
Views
3K
Gravitational Potential Energy on an Incline
Replies
1
Views
2K
Gravitational Potential Energy questions near the surface of a planet
Replies
8
Views
2K
Pan suspended by a spring (Energy + SHM)
Replies
20
Views
3K
Conservation of Energy with Gravitational Potential Energy
Replies
6
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top