Why Use mg vs mgh in Introductory Physics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter guitarman
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
In introductory physics, mg is used to represent gravitational force, while mgh represents gravitational potential energy. The distinction lies in their applications: mg is relevant when applying Newton's second law and momentum principles, whereas mgh is used in energy-related calculations. Work done against gravity translates to potential energy, as lifting an object requires force equal to mg over a height h. The net work done by forces acting on an object equals the change in kinetic energy, highlighting the relationship between work, force, and energy. Understanding these concepts is crucial for grasping the principles of energy conservation and motion in physics.
guitarman
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Can somebody please help me understand in which situations (for a intro physics 1 class) I would be required to use mg versus mgh? Neither my teacher nor my textbook have really gone into when you use which, rather they seem to arbitrarily use one, and I would like to understand why. Thanks for the help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Look at the units. mg is in units of force (kg m/s²), while mgh is in units of energy (kg m²/s²).
 
So do I use mgh when dealing with the energy principle and mg when using the momentum principle?
 
You do use mgh when dealing with energy.

What are the units of momentum? Do they match the units of mg?
 
Newton's second law states: F = m*a, in which a is the acceleration. In the case of gravitation, a = g = 9,1 m/s².

Work = W = F*s.
In case of gravitation, F = m*g, and s could be represented by h (height). The work done equals the change of potential energy. So potential energy U = W = mgh.
 
i thought work was the change in kinetic energy
and work is the integral of F*s
 
cragar said:
i thought work was the change in kinetic energy
and work is the integral of F*s
1) Work can be the change in kinetic energy, but it doesn't have to be so. If a resultant force F would act on a car for a certain distance s, the work done would equal the change of kinetic energy: dT = W = Fs. But if you consider a weight that you want to lift up, you would need a force equal to the gravitational force (in opposite direction) to lift it to a certain height (h). In this case, the work done isn't converted into velocity (kinectic energy) but into height, thus potential energy.

Another, maybe an easier way of looking at the problem is as follows. Consider an object of mass m at a certain height h. The gravitational force Fg=mg acts on the object. The object accelerates until it hits the Earth (the mass will have velocity and thus kinetic energy). Because of conservation of energy, another ''kind'' of energy has lessened in order for the total change of energy to remain zero. This energy is the potential energy, and equals the work done by Fg.

2) W=\int{F\cdot ds}

If F is constant, which is the case for gravitation (although not 100% accurate, since the force is less on a greater distance)

W=\int{F\cdot ds = F \int{ds} = F\cdot s
 
Last edited:
how do u input the integral symbol in ur statement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Work-done-by-a-force is the line-integral-of-F along a path.

Using Newton's Second Law, the net-work (work done by the net-force) is the change-in-the-kinetic-energy.

When there are conservative-forces doing work, one can define a potential energy function and then define that work as minus-the-change-in-potential-energy.
 
  • #11
yes i understood your explanation , thanks
 
  • #12
cragar said:
i thought work was the change in kinetic energy

The net work done by all forces acting on an object equals the change in the object's KE.
 
Back
Top