Understanding Energy (kinetic and potential)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Addem
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Potential
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on two problems related to energy conservation principles. In the first scenario, a 14kg mass falls, transferring energy to an 8kg mass, which raises questions about why the mechanical energy appears to be less than conserved, as energy is transferred rather than lost. The explanation clarifies that energy is conserved in the system as a whole, but not for each individual mass. The second problem involves a rocket launched at escape velocity, where initial energy is considered zero due to negative potential energy at the Earth's surface, leading to confusion about kinetic energy. Overall, the key takeaway is that energy conservation applies to the system, not to individual components, and potential energy must be understood in the context of its reference point.
Addem
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
I have these two problems on energy where I just don't totally understand the explanations given. One goes:

(With a diagram showing a 14kg mass suspended 5m above the ground by a zero-mass rope, connected to a pulley, where on the other side of the rope is an 8kg mass resting on the ground. The rope is taut before the 14kg mass is released and the vector tension on each points straight up.)

"See the masses in Figure (1) which start out at rest. (i) Find the velocity of the 14kg mass just before it hits the ground. (ii) Find the maximum height reached by the 8kg (and don't worry about hitting the pulley). (iii) Find the fraction of mechanical energy left when the system finally comes to rest."

So with this one I can do the math, I just don't understand the conservation of energy principle here. Every force here is either a gravitational force or a tension force which is itself due to a gravitational force being transferred from one object to another. So I would think, here, that the energy would be conserved.

So like I said, I can do the math and see that the computations imply that the answer to part (iii) is less than 1 but I just don't get why, in light of conservation of energy. Can anyone explain to me why energy is not conserved here?

There is a second question,

"A rocket is launched at escape velocity from the surface of the Earth (radius R). What is its velocity when it is at a distance r from the center of the Earth in terms of G and M(of earth)?"

This one I very much don't understand, because when I read the solution it asserts that initial energy is 0. However, I would think that initial kinetic energy would be mv^2 / 2 and potential energy would be 0.

I've never totally understood energy and I'm not sure if that conceptual fogginess is responsible for why I'm not really getting these two problems. Any help is appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, technically when the mass hits the floor, it's energy is transferred into the floor. Everything is made of atoms, and when two objects collide, those atoms are given more energy individually. In fact, waves would be created in the floor/air, which is responsible for the fact that you would be able to hear it fall.

But really, energy here isn't conserved because you are artificially imposing zero motion, without considering the physical process in which it would occur.

For the second question:

The initial energy is zero, at the surface of the earth.
 
Addem said:
I have these two problems on energy where I just don't totally understand the explanations given. One goes:

(With a diagram showing a 14kg mass suspended 5m above the ground by a zero-mass rope, connected to a pulley, where on the other side of the rope is an 8kg mass resting on the ground. The rope is taut before the 14kg mass is released and the vector tension on each points straight up.)

"See the masses in Figure (1) which start out at rest. (i) Find the velocity of the 14kg mass just before it hits the ground. (ii) Find the maximum height reached by the 8kg (and don't worry about hitting the pulley). (iii) Find the fraction of mechanical energy left when the system finally comes to rest."

So with this one I can do the math, I just don't understand the conservation of energy principle here. Every force here is either a gravitational force or a tension force which is itself due to a gravitational force being transferred from one object to another. So I would think, here, that the energy would be conserved.

So like I said, I can do the math and see that the computations imply that the answer to part (iii) is less than 1 but I just don't get why, in light of conservation of energy. Can anyone explain to me why energy is not conserved here?
Energy is conserved up to an instant before the 14 kg mass hits the floor. But it is the energy of the system that is conserved, not the energy of each mass individually. Energy is transferred from the 14 kg. to the 8 kg mass.

There is a second question,

"A rocket is launched at escape velocity from the surface of the Earth (radius R). What is its velocity when it is at a distance r from the center of the Earth in terms of G and M(of earth)?"

This one I very much don't understand, because when I read the solution it asserts that initial energy is 0. However, I would think that initial kinetic energy would be mv^2 / 2 and potential energy would be 0.

I've never totally understood energy and I'm not sure if that conceptual fogginess is responsible for why I'm not really getting these two problems. Any help is appreciated.
Potential energy is negative at the surface of the earth. At infinite r, its potential energy is 0. Escape velocity means it has enough kinetic energy at the Earth surface to reach infinite r at which point is speed is 0 (0 KE). Since total energy does not change, its total energy everywhere from R to ∞ is 0.

AM
 
The 14kg mass falling through 5m 'gives up' 686J of PE.
This energy appears as PE of the 8kg mass rising by 5m + KE of 8kg mass + KE of the 14kg mass as it hits the ground
This last amount of KE is therefore not part of the total mechanical energy of the masses.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top