Possible webpage title: What Type of Simple Machine Has an Efficiency of 81.7%?

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the efficiency of a simple machine, which is found to be 81.7%. The user correctly applies the formulas for work output and work input but uses a nonstandard value for gravitational acceleration. The low efficiency suggests significant friction or air resistance affecting the machine's performance. The maximum theoretical efficiency is stated to be 100%, indicating that real-world machines will always have some energy loss. The conversation concludes with a prompt to identify the type of simple machine that could exhibit such efficiency.
scientist
Messages
28
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Could I please have a tutor check my answer and solution?

question: An effort of 3 kN is required to move a mass of 2000 kg in a certain simple machine. If the mass is raised 1.5 meters while the effort moves 12 meters, find the efficiency?

2. equations used in solution:

work output = load x distance moved by load
work input = effort x distance moved by effort
efficiency = work output / work input
3kN = 3000 Newtons

The Attempt at a Solution



my solution:

efficiency = work output / work input

mass = 2000 kg =19613.3 Newtons x 1.5 meters /

3000 Newtons x 12 meters

effort = 29419.95 Nm / 353039.4 Nm

= 0.817

Now, is it possible to have such a low efficiency in a machine? What simple machine would this be?





 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
scientist said:
efficiency = work output / work input

mass = 2000 kg =19613.3 Newtons x 1.5 meters /

3000 Newtons x 12 meters

effort = 29419.95 Nm / 353039.4 Nm

= 0.817
Your solution is correct, although you seemed to have used a nonstandard value for the acceleration due to gravity.
scientist said:
Now, is it possible to have such a low efficiency in a machine? What simple machine would this be?
Why do you think that this efficiency is low? What is the maximum theoretically possible efficiency?
 
Which nonstandard value did I use?

Why do you think that this efficiency is low? What is the maximum theoretically possible efficiency? The maximum theoretically possible efficiency would be 100%.

I think the efficiency is low because we have a number of .817.The efficiency of any machine depends upon the amount of friction and air resistance present. A frictionless machine would have an efficiency of 100%. Here we have .817 for efficiency, so we must have a lot friction or air resistance.
 
scientist said:
Which nonstandard value did I use?
You used g = 9.80665, which is indeed the standard acceleration due to gravity; however, g is more commonly approximated to 9.81 since the actual value of g varies greatly depending on location. It is not a serious problem though.
scientist said:
The maximum theoretically possible efficiency would be 100%.
I think the efficiency is low because we have a number of .817
Note here, that 0.817 is not a percentage efficiency.
 
Ok, the percentage efficiency is 81.7%. How can I find out what kind of simple machine this would be?
 
scientist said:
Ok, the percentage efficiency is 81.7%. How can I find out what kind of simple machine this would be?
Correct. Consider what type of machine/system would operate in such a way?
scientist said:
An effort of 3 kN is required to move a mass of 2000 kg in a certain simple machine. If the mass is raised 1.5 meters while the effort moves 12 meters[...]
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
11K
Replies
1
Views
2K