B Why doesn't the gravity vector contribute to KE sliding down a ramp?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies how to calculate kinetic energy (KE) for a block on a declined ramp. It emphasizes that KE is determined by the equation KE = initial PE - any energy lost due to friction, rather than including work done by gravity separately. This is because including gravity's work would result in double counting, as it is already factored into the change in potential energy (PE). Participants suggest solving the problem using both potential energy and work done by gravity to understand the equivalence of the results. Overall, the conversation enhances comprehension of energy conservation principles in physics.
gazeem
Messages
9
Reaction score
2
TL;DR Summary
For physics questions where, say, a block is at the top of a declined ramp, how come the KE once the block reaches the bottom is determined by:

KE = initial PE - any energy lost due to friction

rather than:

KE = initial PE - any energy lost due to friction + any work done by the vector component of gravity that is parallel to the direction vector of the object.
244340
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gazeem said:
KE = initial PE - any energy lost due to friction + any work done by the vector component of gravity that is parallel to the direction vector of the object
The PE is the same as the work done by the vector component of gravity that is parallel to the direction vector of the object.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, gazeem and Chestermiller
gazeem said:
Summary: For physics questions where, say, a block is at the top of a declined ramp, how come the KE once the block reaches the bottom is determined by:

KE = initial PE - any energy lost due to friction

Or more generally:
KE = (initial PE - final PE) - any energy lost due to friction

gazeem said:
rather than:

KE = initial PE - any energy lost due to friction + any work done by the vector component of gravity that is parallel to the direction vector of the object.
Beacuse that would be double accounting for the work done by gravity, which is already included as:
initial PE - final PE
 
  • Like
Likes gazeem
Ah okay I see. Thank you both so much for your responses, makes more sense now.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
gazeem said:
Ah okay I see. Thank you both so much for your responses, makes more sense now.

It would be a good exercise to solve the problem both ways: 1) using PE and 2) using W = Fd for the gravitational force down the slope.

This may give you an insight into why physically and mathematically they give the same result.
 
  • Like
Likes gazeem and russ_watters
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top