Solving a 2.2kg Block Incline Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter GOPgabe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Block Incline
AI Thread Summary
A 2.2kg block slides down a 30-degree incline from a height of 10m, with a coefficient of friction of 0.1. The potential energy at the start is calculated as 215.82 J. The work done against friction needs to be considered when determining how high the block will ascend the second incline. The initial calculations suggest the block will reach a height of approximately 6.53m, but frictional losses indicate it won't return to the full height of 10m. A more accurate approach involves calculating kinetic energy at the bottom and then determining the ascent distance based on that value.
GOPgabe
Messages
10
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A 2.2kg block slides down a planar incline. The incline makes an angle of thirty degrees with the horizontal and the block starts 10 m above ground. The coefficient of friction between the block and the incline is .1. The block reaches the bottom of the incline and then slides up an identical incline on the other side. To what vertical height will the block slide on the second incline? Ans. 7m

Homework Equations


P.E.= mgh
Ff=u mg cos (theta)


The Attempt at a Solution



The potential energy is =2.2*9.81*10=215.82

Here's where I'm a little unsure.
The work done by Ff is u mg cos(theta) * 20 ( the hypotenuse) *2, because you have to account for it up, right?

So 215-74.686=141.34

To account for height I think mgh works so 141.34/(2.2*9.81).

I get 6.53, not 7. Did I do this correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
GOPgabe said:
The potential energy is =2.2*9.81*10=215.82
So far so good. :approve:
Here's where I'm a little unsure.
The work done by Ff is u mg cos(theta) * 20 ( the hypotenuse) *2, because you have to account for it up, right?
Well, you do have to account for it going back up, yes. But the way you have done it, you are accounting for it going all the way back up, to reach a total height of 10 m (i.e. another distance of 20 m back up along the hypotenuse).

But you can be sure, that due to friction (and conservation of energy), that it's not going to make it that far back up. You can bet that the frictional losses will be greater when going down than back up, because the object doesn't travel as far on the way back up. (For a constant force like friction on a dry flat surface, W = \mathbf{F_f} \cdot \mathbf{s} [/tex]. But we don&#039;t know what <i><b>s</b></i> is yet, on the way back up.) <br /> <br /> I suggest breaking the problem up into two parts. Find the kinetic energy when it reaches the bottom. Using that interim value, then set up a new equation in terms of an unknown distance back up the incline. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":wink:" title="Wink :wink:" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=":wink:" />
 
Got it! Thanks!
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top