Why Use mg vs mgh in Introductory Physics?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter guitarman
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the distinction between using mg and mgh in introductory physics. The term mg represents gravitational force (in Newtons), while mgh denotes gravitational potential energy (in Joules). The use of mgh is appropriate when addressing energy principles, whereas mg is utilized in momentum principles. Understanding these concepts is crucial for applying Newton's laws effectively in physics problems.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's Second Law (F = m*a)
  • Knowledge of gravitational force and acceleration due to gravity (g = 9.81 m/s²)
  • Familiarity with the concepts of work and energy
  • Basic calculus for integrating force over distance
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the relationship between work and kinetic energy using the work-energy theorem
  • Explore the concept of conservative forces and potential energy functions
  • Learn about the integral calculus involved in calculating work done by a force
  • Investigate real-world applications of gravitational potential energy in physics problems
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, educators, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of fundamental physics concepts related to force, work, and energy.

guitarman
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Can somebody please help me understand in which situations (for a intro physics 1 class) I would be required to use mg versus mgh? Neither my teacher nor my textbook have really gone into when you use which, rather they seem to arbitrarily use one, and I would like to understand why. Thanks for the help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Look at the units. mg is in units of force (kg m/s²), while mgh is in units of energy (kg m²/s²).
 
So do I use mgh when dealing with the energy principle and mg when using the momentum principle?
 
You do use mgh when dealing with energy.

What are the units of momentum? Do they match the units of mg?
 
Newton's second law states: F = m*a, in which a is the acceleration. In the case of gravitation, a = g = 9,1 m/s².

Work = W = F*s.
In case of gravitation, F = m*g, and s could be represented by h (height). The work done equals the change of potential energy. So potential energy U = W = mgh.
 
i thought work was the change in kinetic energy
and work is the integral of F*s
 
cragar said:
i thought work was the change in kinetic energy
and work is the integral of F*s
1) Work can be the change in kinetic energy, but it doesn't have to be so. If a resultant force F would act on a car for a certain distance s, the work done would equal the change of kinetic energy: dT = W = Fs. But if you consider a weight that you want to lift up, you would need a force equal to the gravitational force (in opposite direction) to lift it to a certain height (h). In this case, the work done isn't converted into velocity (kinectic energy) but into height, thus potential energy.

Another, maybe an easier way of looking at the problem is as follows. Consider an object of mass m at a certain height h. The gravitational force Fg=mg acts on the object. The object accelerates until it hits the Earth (the mass will have velocity and thus kinetic energy). Because of conservation of energy, another ''kind'' of energy has lessened in order for the total change of energy to remain zero. This energy is the potential energy, and equals the work done by Fg.

2) W=\int{F\cdot ds}

If F is constant, which is the case for gravitation (although not 100% accurate, since the force is less on a greater distance)

W=\int{F\cdot ds = F \int{ds} = F\cdot s
 
Last edited:
how do u input the integral symbol in ur statement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Work-done-by-a-force is the line-integral-of-F along a path.

Using Newton's Second Law, the net-work (work done by the net-force) is the change-in-the-kinetic-energy.

When there are conservative-forces doing work, one can define a potential energy function and then define that work as minus-the-change-in-potential-energy.
 
  • #11
yes i understood your explanation , thanks
 
  • #12
cragar said:
i thought work was the change in kinetic energy

The net work done by all forces acting on an object equals the change in the object's KE.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K