What Is the Speed of a Block at Different Points on a Frictionless Hill?

  • Thread starter Thread starter misyg
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics Velocity
AI Thread Summary
A 250g block slides down a frictionless hill with a height of 1.2m, reaching a speed of 5 m/s halfway down. The discussion revolves around calculating the block's speed at the top and bottom of the hill using energy conservation principles. Participants suggest using the equations for kinetic energy (KE) and gravitational potential energy (GPE) while noting a mistake in mass conversion in the calculations. The correct mass should be used to accurately derive the speeds at different points. The conversation emphasizes the importance of careful calculations in energy conservation problems.
misyg
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
A 250g block slides down a frictionless hill. If the hill is 1.2m high and the speed of the block is 5 m/s when it is halfway down, what was the speed of the block at the bottom and at the top?

I tried using the equation KE(top)+GPE(top)+SPE(top)=KE(middle)+GPE(middle)+SPE(middle) and the same for the middle+bottom But I just could not figure out the correct answer.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Assuming your SPE is spring potential energy, and you're setting that value to zero, you're on the right track. Can you post your actual calculation steps? I should be able to point you in the right direction if you show me how you plugged your numbers in for your calculations =)
 
Last edited:
I set them equal to zero, the SPE, and came up with the equation for the top and middle of the hill...top(1/2mv2)+(mgh)=(1/2mv2)+(mgh)middle...(1.25v2)+(2.94)=(3.125)+(1.47)
v2=1.324
vtop=1.1507

does that sound correct.
 
Well, the approach was fine, however it looks like you made a little mistake on converting your mass, judging by your coefficient in front of v². it looks like you used the correct mass for the rest of your values however, so it must have been just a little slip up for that one. Try solving it using .125 instead and see if that gets you your answer =)
 
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