Kinetic energy physics exercise

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a high school physics exercise involving a ball dropped down a slide, transitioning to horizontal motion at the bottom. Participants clarify that the ball maintains a constant velocity horizontally due to the conservation of energy, converting potential energy to kinetic energy without any external forces acting on it. Questions arise about the energy state of the ball when stationary on the floor, with the consensus that it has zero mechanical energy at that point. Energy is not created when lifting the ball; instead, work is done to convert biochemical energy into gravitational potential energy. The principle of conservation of energy remains intact throughout the experiment.
Fabian901
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
I'm going through a physics exercise at high school level. A ball is dropped through a slide and when it reaches the bottom of the slide it will travel horizontally. Assuming there is no energy loss due to friction or air resistance draw a velocity time graph.
I tried working it out, the answer on the book says that when the ball reaches the bottom of the slide it will start moving horizontally with a positive constant velocity. I'm a bit confused on the constant velocity part. When the ball is moving horizontally, it obviously has KE. And the fact that it has energy doesn't it mean that there is a force applied through a distance, and therefore it should accelerate?
Many thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The ball's total energy is constant through the entire experiment. A force is only required to gain energy. All this experiment does is convert potential energy to kinetic energy.
 
  • Like
Likes Fabian901
Many thanks Russ! I don't think I understand the principle of conservation of energy that well then. Imagine that before someone put the ball on top of the slide the ball was standing on the floor with no motion, what was the energy of the ball standing still on the floor? Is it 0 joules? Was energy being created to place the ball on top of the slide? If so, wouldn't this contradict the principle of conservation energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed?
 
Fabian901 said:
Imagine that before someone put the ball on top of the slide the ball was standing on the floor with no motion, what was the energy of the ball standing still on the floor? Is it 0 joules?
Measured with respect to the floor, the mechanical energy of the ball would be zero. (0 gravitational PE + 0 kinetic energy)

Fabian901 said:
Was energy being created to place the ball on top of the slide?
Energy was used to lift the ball and place it on the top of the slide, but that energy wasn't 'created'. For example, if a person lifted it, that person had to do work on the ball, essentially converting some biochemical energy to give the ball increased potential energy.

Fabian901 said:
If so, wouldn't this contradict the principle of conservation energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed?
Not to worry. Conservation of energy is safe and sound!
 
  • Like
Likes Fabian901
Thanks a lot for the help guys!
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Can energy be decomposed?
Replies
2
Views
1K
B Conservation of Energy: Ball on a U-Shaped Ramp
Replies
2
Views
304
B Colliding balls: Conservation of momentum and changes in kinetic energy?
Replies
2
Views
2K
B The physics of flywheel launchers (like tennis ball shooters)
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
B Why in two block systems do both blocks tend to have the same velocity?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Counter-intuitive 2D collision
Replies
9
Views
1K
B Why is KE not conserved when momentum is?
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
B About verification on Kinetic energy and work
Replies
16
Views
2K
Does friction always result in energy loss?
Replies
3
Views
2K
B Understanding Physics for Coding Collision of 2 Balls
Replies
14
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top