Power and Efficiency without mass?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of energy conservation in free fall and how it relates to mass. It clarifies that the maximum height a ball reaches after bouncing is independent of its mass, as both mass and gravitational acceleration cancel out in the calculations. The solution demonstrates that if a ball loses a consistent percentage of energy during bounces, it will rise to the same height regardless of its mass. Critiques of the textbook solution highlight issues such as the lack of units and premature numerical substitutions, which could lead to confusion. Overall, the key takeaway is that the physics of free fall and energy conservation applies uniformly, irrespective of mass.
sbrads87
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Possible error in text (has happened before.)
A basketball loses 35% of its kinetic energy when it hits the floor. Initially dropped from a height of 1.2m. How much time will it be in the air between 3rd and 4th bounces?
Relevant Equations
Ek = Eg = mgh = m(9.81)(1.2)

s = v2t-1/2at^2
Really perplexed me as the answer provided does not solve for mass ... seemingly wants to use mass as a unit of height? Or perhaps I'm off base ... really just curious if this is even correct or possible?

Thanks in advance
 

Attachments

  • 20230303_225314.jpg
    20230303_225314.jpg
    32.8 KB · Views: 110
Physics news on Phys.org
Sounds okay. Is the answer going to be different depending on the mass of the b-ball ?
 
It is correct. The solution shows that the answer is independent of the mass. Look at it this way. If you drop a mass from height ##h_0##, its mechanical energy before the bounce is ##E_0=mgh_0##. If it loses 35% of that during the bounce, it will have ##KE_1=0.65mgh_0## left in the form of kinetic energy.

Question: To what maximum height ##h_1## will the ball rise?
Answer: $$mgh_1=KE_1=0.65mgh_0\implies h_1=0.65h_0.$$Note that the answer is independent of the mass. If you drop two unequal masses, they will hit the floor at the same time; if in addition they lose the same fraction of energy after the bounce, they will rise to the same maximum height.
 
The textbook solution is poor in several ways.

1. It plugs in numbers without units. E.g. we read "##mgh=11.8m##" instead of "##mgh=m\cdot 11.8m^2/s^2##". That may be why you thought it was turning mass into a distance.

2. It plugs in numbers too soon. By leaving g as g it would have cancelled out in the first part, as @kuruman shows in post #4. That makes for less work and greater accuracy.

3. It was never necessary to find an energy. Since after three bounces it will only have ##0.65^3## of its initial energy, we know it will rise to a height of ##1.2\cdot 0.65^3=0.33##m. After that, it is just a matter of finding how long it takes to fall to the ground from that height and doubling it.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with an outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top