Non-conservative work energy theorem and potential energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving a block pushed up a ramp with friction. The user initially applies the non-conservative work-energy theorem, concluding that the work done by friction equals the change in potential energy. However, they realize that they neglected to account for the external force pushing the block up the ramp, which is essential for calculating the total energy involved. The confusion stems from equating the work done by friction solely to potential energy without considering the applied force. Ultimately, the user acknowledges their oversight in recognizing the additional energy source required to move the block up the ramp.
blueblast
Here is problem I quickly made up:

Suppose there is a ramp with a height of 6 meters and length of 12 meters. A block of 5 kg is pushed up to the top of the ramp with a constant velocity. The force of friction is 15 N.

Here's the confusion:

By using the non-conservative force work energy theorem, Work done by friction(Wf) = (KEf-KEi) + (PEf-PEi).

Since the block is pushed up at a constant velocity, the change in KE is zero. And since the block start from the ground, PEi is zero. So, Wf = PEf. Wf = friction * distance = 15 N * 12 meters = 180. So PEf = 180.

However, mgh says that potential energy is 5 kg * 6 meters * 9.8 m/s^2 =294.

Could someone please tell me where I am wrong? A diagram of the problem is attached just in case my words weren't clear.
Untitled drawing (3).png
 

Attachments

  • Untitled drawing (3).png
    Untitled drawing (3).png
    4.9 KB · Views: 1,817
Physics news on Phys.org
blueblast said:
Since the block is pushed up
That sounds like a source of energy that you have not accounted for.
 
Friction is not the only force acting on the block. What makes the block to go up the ramp?
 
jbriggs444 said:
That sounds like a source of energy that you have not accounted for.
Ah, I see my mistake now. 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