What Was the Acceleration of the 1852 Crampton Coal-Fired Train Engine?

AI Thread Summary
The 1852 Crampton coal-fired train engine had a mass of 48.3 tons and a force capability of 22.4 kN. When pulling train cars that doubled its mass, the net force after accounting for friction was 12.3 kN. This results in an acceleration of 0.0849 m/s², which, while seemingly low, is reasonable for the technology of the time. In 100 seconds, this acceleration would allow the train to reach a speed of over 8 m/s. Overall, the calculations and assumptions about the train's performance are accurate for its historical context.
thua
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
When the Crampton coal-fired train engine was built in 1852, its mass was 48.3 t (1.0 t = 1.0 x 10^3 kg) and its force capability was rated at 22.4 kN. Assuming it was pulling train cars whose total mass doubled its own mass and the total friction on the engine and cars was 10.1 kN, what was the magnitude of the acceleration of the train?
What I have: (not sure if it's right though)
m = 48.3 t = (48.3 x 10^3 kg) x 3 = 144.9 x 10^3 kg
net force = 22.4kN - 10.1 kN = 12.3 kN = 12300 N
acceleration = ?
acceleration = net force / mass
= 12300 N / 144.9 x 10^3 kg
acceleration = 0.0849 m/s^2
acceleration = 8.49 x 10^3 kg
Is this right? because 0.0849 m/s^2 doesn't seem very reasonable to me. If it's wrong, could someone please help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your procedure looks perfectly fine to me.
 
Were you expecting a train in 1852 to take off really fast?

Notice that in only 100 seconds (1 min 40 seconds), the train will be traveling over 8 m/s. Now that's a pretty good pace!

By the way:
"acceleration = 0.0849 m/s^2" is correct.

"acceleration = 8.49 x 10^3 kg" is nonsense. I presume you meant
"8.49 x 10^(-2) m/s^2".
 
Yah, trains back then could go... 40mph at the most probably back then.
 
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