The Energy and Efficiency of Cross-Country Skiing: A Mathematical Analysis

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the energy and efficiency involved in cross-country skiing, specifically focusing on the mechanical work required for ascending a peak, the role of kinetic energy, metabolic rates, and energy dissipation due to friction.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the calculation of potential energy and the reasoning behind not considering kinetic energy in the context of constant speed. Questions arise regarding the metabolic rate and energy dissipation due to friction, with one participant seeking verification of their calculations and assistance with part d.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided calculations for potential energy and metabolic rate, while others are exploring the work done by friction. There is an ongoing inquiry into the correctness of the answers provided, particularly regarding part d, indicating a collaborative effort to clarify understanding.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of a homework assignment, which may limit the information available for part d. The efficiency of the skier's activity is noted as 11%, and the discussion includes specific numerical values related to the problem.

snav96
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
  1. A cross-country skier ascends a peak and rises 300 m vertically during the ascent. Her mass including clothing skis, poles, shoes and backpack is 65 kg.
    1. (a) Find the minimum mechanical work needed to be done by the skier (neglect friction).
    2. (b) Why do we not need to consider the skier’s kinetic energy in part (a)?
    3. (c) What is the metabolic rate needed, if the efficiency for this activity is 11% and it took 30 min to climb up that 300 m? (‘rate’ here means energy/time, i.e. power).
    4. (d) If the mean sliding friction force opposing motion of the skis when slid forward with each stride is 4.5 N, how much energy is dissipated by friction in a distance of 1200 m measured along the path?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



a) Potential Energy = 300 m x 9.8 x 65 Kg = 191100 J

b) because the speed stays constant. there's no change in kinetic energy [/B]

c) amount of efficient energy = 191100 x 0.11 = 21021 J
Power = 21021 / 30 x 60 = 11.68 w

d) ?

can anyone check to see if my answers are correct? and help me with part d? cause i have no idea how to answer part d

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
snav96 said:
A cross-country skier ascends a peak and rises 300 m vertically during the ascent. Her mass including clothing skis, poles, shoes and backpack is 65 kg.
  1. (a) Find the minimum mechanical work needed to be done by the skier (neglect friction).
  2. (b) Why do we not need to consider the skier’s kinetic energy in part (a)?
  3. (c) What is the metabolic rate needed, if the efficiency for this activity is 11% and it took 30 min to climb up that 300 m? (‘rate’ here means energy/time, i.e. power).
  4. (d) If the mean sliding friction force opposing motion of the skis when slid forward with each stride is 4.5 N, how much energy is dissipated by friction in a distance of 1200 m measured along the path?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution

[/b]

a) Potential Energy = 300 m x 9.8 x 65 Kg = 191100 J

b) because the speed stays constant. there's no change in kinetic energy

c) amount of efficient energy = 191100 x 0.11 = 21021 J
Power = 21021 / 30 x 60 = 11.68 w
Efficiency is (useful output)/input. The useful output in this problem is the work needed to ascend the 300 m.

d) ?

Can anyone check to see if my answers are correct, and help me with part d Because I have no idea how to answer part d?
Part d is asking you to calculate the work done by friction.
 
vela said:
Efficiency is (useful output)/input. The useful output in this problem is the work needed to ascend the 300 m.Part d is asking you to calculate the work done by friction.
so it is it just 4.5N x 1200m ?
 
Yup.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K