Speed of the particle at a height h

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the speed of a particle projected at an angle α when it reaches a height h. The problem involves concepts from kinematics and energy conservation, specifically relating kinetic energy (KE) and potential energy (PE).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between kinetic and potential energy, questioning how energy changes with height. They discuss different expressions for kinetic energy at different heights and how to relate these to the initial conditions of the problem.

Discussion Status

Participants have provided various approaches to the problem, including attempts to derive expressions for kinetic energy at height h and the implications of energy conservation. There is ongoing exploration of the relationships between initial kinetic energy, potential energy gained, and the speed of the particle at height h.

Contextual Notes

Some participants question the assumptions regarding the maximum height of the particle and the distribution of energy between vertical and horizontal components. The discussion reflects a mix of interpretations and methods, with no explicit consensus reached on a single approach.

moenste
Messages
711
Reaction score
12

Homework Statement


A particle is projected with speed v at an angle α to the horizontal. Find the speed of the particle when it is at a height h.

Answer: √v2 - 2gh

2. The attempt at a solution
a. Since PE gained is KE lost we need to find KE and PE.
KE = 0.5 * m * (v sin α)2 (the vertical component of velocity)
PE = mgh

0.5m * (v sin α)2 = mgh
v = √ 2gh / (sin α)2

or

b. v2 = u2 + 2as
Upward direction is positive. So we have:
u = v sin α
a = -g
s = h
v = √(v sin α)2 -2gh

But both of them do not fit the answer.

Thanks in advance for any help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
A particle's speed is tied to its total KE. You don't have to know how this energy is apportioned to horizontal and vertical components, simply the total energy. However, you do know how the KE changes with a change in height, h. Can you write an expression for the initial KE at height zero? How about for the total KE at some height h?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: moenste
gneill said:
A particle's speed is tied to its total KE. You don't have to know how this energy is apportioned to horizontal and vertical components, simply the total energy. However, you do know how the KE changes with a change in height, h. Can you write an expression for the initial KE at height zero? How about for the total KE at some height h?
KE at zero height = 0.5 mv2
KE at some height is zero and equals to PE = mght?
 
moenste said:
KE at zero height = 0.5 mv2
KE at some height is zero and equals to PE = mght?

Yes, the initial KE is specified by its initial velocity: ##KE_o = \frac{1}{2}m v_o^2## .

But the change in KE depends upon the change in height. Can you write an expression for KE(h)? Assume that KE=KEo when h=0.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: moenste
Update: I worked on the b. part and this is what I got:

Consider the vertical motion: v2 = u2 + 2as
v2 = (v sin α)2 - 2gh

Consider horizontal motion: v = v cos α

Since we need to find the speed, by Pythagoras: speed2 = vvertical2 + vhorizontal2
So speed = √(v sin α)2 - 2gh + (v cos α)2 = √v2(sin2 α + cos2 α) - 2gh = √v2 - 2gh

Does this look correct?
 
gneill said:
Yes, the initial KE is specified by its initial velocity: ##KE_o = \frac{1}{2}m v_o^2## .

But the change in KE depends upon the change in height. Can you write an expression for KE(h)? Assume that KE=KEo when h=0.
Hm, if we assume that a particle does not reach its maximum height (at max height the velocity is zero) and we use the fact that KE lost = PE gained, I would write the formula like this: KE0-KE = PE. So KE0 = when the particle is on the ground less the KE when the particle is somewhere flying equals to PE. So 9 - 3 = 6. 9 was the initial KE0, 3 is the KE at some height and 6 is the KE lost or PE gained. That could be written like 0.5 mvinitial2 - 0.5mvnew2 = mghat this moment. Am I following you correctly?

Update: I think I got it what are you suggesting :).

I need vnew. So, I put - 0.5mvnew2 = mghat this moment - 0.5 mvinitial2
We simplify it:
0.5vnew2 = 0.5vinitial2 - gh
vnew = √vinitial2 - 2gh

Which is the correct answer.
 
moenste said:
Hm, if we assume that a particle does not reach its maximum height (at max height the velocity is zero) and we use the fact that KE lost = PE gained, I would write the formula like this: KE0-KE = PE. So KE0 = when the particle is on the ground less the KE when the particle is somewhere flying equals to PE. So 9 - 3 = 6. 9 was the initial KE0, 3 is the KE at some height and 6 is the KE lost or PE gained. That could be written like 0.5 mvinitial2 - 0.5mvnew2 = mghat this moment. Am I following you correctly?

That's the idea. The KE at any height h (where h is bounded by the trajectory of the particle) is given by ##KE_h = KE_o + \Delta KE##.

You know what the initial KE is: ##KE_o = \frac{1}{2}m v^2##; and you know how ##\Delta KE## is tied to ##\Delta PE##. Combine the pieces and write it out. Then the speed follows from the "translation" of KE to speed in the usual manner.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: moenste
moenste said:
Update: I worked on the b. part and this is what I got:

Consider the vertical motion: v2 = u2 + 2as
v2 = (v sin α)2 - 2gh

Consider horizontal motion: v = v cos α

Since we need to find the speed, by Pythagoras: speed2 = vvertical2 + vhorizontal2
So speed = √(v sin α)2 - 2gh + (v cos α)2 = √v2(sin2 α + cos2 α) - 2gh = √v2 - 2gh

Does this look correct?
That works, but it's certainly going about it the hard way. You don't have to separate the velocity components when you are dealing with the change in energy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: moenste
gneill said:
That works, but it's certainly going about it the hard way. You don't have to separate the velocity components when you are dealing with the change in energy.
Though it's better for the understanding. As soon as I wrote it out I understood right away the logic behind it. Thank you.
 
  • #10
moenste said:
Though it's better for the understanding. As soon as I wrote it out I understood right away the logic behind it. Thank you.
That's fine, so long as you can appreciate the expediency of being able to ignore the velocity components entirely and dealing directly with the energy. It's certainly much speedier in an exam, for example.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: moenste

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
40
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K