Kinetic Energy Equation conceptual question?

AI Thread Summary
Understanding when to use potential energy in energy conservation equations is crucial, especially in scenarios involving changes in height, like a skier on a slope. In the discussed problem, the skier's final velocity was determined using net work and initial kinetic energy without explicitly incorporating gravitational potential energy. However, it was clarified that the work done by gravity corresponds to the change in potential energy, while friction does not have associated potential energy as it is non-conservative. If there is a change in potential energy, it must be considered; otherwise, in an isolated system, kinetic energy remains constant. Overall, recognizing the role of net work and potential energy is essential for accurately solving energy conservation problems.
scharry03
Messages
12
Reaction score
1
This is mostly a conceptual confusion I'm having, not a specific problem, so it didn't seem like it'd fit under homework problems.
I'm having trouble understanding when potential energy should or shouldn't be used in a energy conservation equation. When looking at a problem with a skier going down a hall, we were given his weight, initial velocity, slope of the hill, value of friction force, and distance traveled, and were asked to find his final velocity.
We found the net work done, added it to the initial kinetic energy, and found his final velocity through his final kinetic energy. We didn't use the potential energy of gravity at all, but later we have an equation that says initial and final potential energy of gravity should be on the respective sides of the equations. Why is it they weren't used for a problem of a skier skiing down a hill? Does the net work account for it?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
scharry03 said:
I'm having trouble understanding when potential energy should or shouldn't be used in a energy conservation equation.

If there is a change in potential energy it needs to be considered. Of course, if the system is isolated and there is no change in potential energy then the kinetic energy is constant and you have a rather boring situation. If the system is not isolated the kinetic energy will change due to any net external work.

scharry03 said:
We found the net work done, added it to the initial kinetic energy, and found his final velocity through his final kinetic energy.

Right. The work done by gravity is equivalent to the (negative) change in gravitational potential energy. The work done by friction is not conservative and therefore does not have a potential energy.

Potential energy is just a convenient way to represent the work done by a conservative; if you find the net work this will equal the change in kinetic energy.
 
brainpushups said:
If there is a change in potential energy it needs to be considered. Of course, if the system is isolated and there is no change in potential energy then the kinetic energy is constant and you have a rather boring situation. If the system is not isolated the kinetic energy will change due to any net external work.
Right. The work done by gravity is equivalent to the (negative) change in gravitational potential energy. The work done by friction is not conservative and therefore does not have a potential energy.

Potential energy is just a convenient way to represent the work done by a conservative; if you find the net work this will equal the change in kinetic energy.

Awesome, that makes total sense. Thanks!
 
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