MHB Why Is No Work Done Against the Weight of a Skier Moving Down a Slope?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the application of the work-energy principle in analyzing the forces acting on a skier moving down a slope. It emphasizes that no work is done against the skier's weight because the gravitational force acts parallel to the displacement, resulting in no opposing work. The conversation highlights the importance of considering all forces, including friction and the pulling force, to determine net work. It also notes that energy conservation cannot be applied due to the presence of friction, necessitating a vectorial force analysis. Understanding these concepts is crucial for solving problems related to work and energy in this context.
Needhelp2
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hi!
I am finding the work-energy principle and idea of total mechanical energy hard to apply to finding the work done against/by a particular force.
For example in the question below, why is there no work done against the weight of the skier acting down the slope?

Any help would be great!
Thanks :D
 

Attachments

  • m2.png
    m2.png
    14.7 KB · Views: 96
Mathematics news on Phys.org
So don't forget the sign conventions with work. Since work done by a constant force is actually defined by $W= \vec{F} \cdot \vec{d}=F\,d\, \cos(\theta),$ where $\theta$ is the angle between the force vector $\vec{F}$ and the displacement vector $\vec{d}$, what you are asked to do in this problem is combine two different expressions for work (definition and the work-energy theorem) to find the work done by the pulling force.

I would recommend a free-body diagram for this problem. One thing you know: the increase in speed from $2$ m/s to $5$ m/s gives you a change in kinetic energy, which is equal to the net work. The net work comes from the net force. If you can find the net force, you could probably find the pulling force, so long as you know all the other forces. Then what could you do?
 
Ackbach said:
So don't forget the sign conventions with work. Since work done by a constant force is actually defined by $W= \vec{F} \cdot \vec{d}=F\,d\, \cos(\theta),$ where $\theta$ is the angle between the force vector $\vec{F}$ and the displacement vector $\vec{d}$, what you are asked to do in this problem is combine two different expressions for work (definition and the work-energy theorem) to find the work done by the pulling force.

I would recommend a free-body diagram for this problem. One thing you know: the increase in speed from $2$ m/s to $5$ m/s gives you a change in kinetic energy, which is equal to the net work. The net work comes from the net force. If you can find the net force, you could probably find the pulling force, so long as you know all the other forces. Then what could you do?

you haven't mentioned the gain in GPE the skier would have or the work done against the friction? Where would these come in?
 
Needhelp said:
you haven't mentioned the gain in GPE the skier would have

Well, the problem here is that energy is not conserved, since there is friction. Therefore, a conservation of energy approach is invalid. Hence, you must analyze the forces vectorially. Gravity definitely plays a role, but it'll show up in your force analysis, rather than as a gravitational potential energy.

or the work done against the friction?

There are three forces doing work (that is, there are three forces that are either parallel or anti-parallel to the displacement): the pulling force (doing positive work), the friction force (doing negative work), and the component of gravity that is directed down the incline (doing negative work). Those all have to show up when you write down the net work.

Where would these come in?

Hopefully, I've answered this question. But by all means, if you're still stuck, keep pushing me with more questions.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top