Why why why is Potential Energy equal to Kinetic Energy in this problem?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the conservation of mechanical energy in a scenario involving a swinging child. The original poster questions why potential energy is set equal to kinetic energy in the context of the problem, which involves a swing released from a height at a specific angle.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the concept of mechanical energy conservation, questioning the relationship between potential and kinetic energy at different points in the swing's motion. They discuss how to calculate potential energy based on height and the role of the angle in determining that height.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants seeking clarification on the application of energy conservation principles and the specific calculations involved. Some guidance has been provided regarding the use of gravitational potential energy and the significance of the angle in determining height.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the implications of friction in the problem and how it affects energy calculations. There is an ongoing exploration of how to apply the concepts of potential and kinetic energy in various scenarios, particularly with respect to angles and height changes.

riseofphoenix
Messages
294
Reaction score
2
Why why why is Potential Energy equal to Kinetic Energy in this problem??

A 31.0 kg child on a 3.00 m long swing is released from rest?
when the ropes of the the swing make an angle of 28.0° with the vertical

(a) Neglecting friction, find the child's speed at the lowest position.____m/s

potential energy = kinetic energy
mgh = 1/2 mv2
0.35 * 9.8 = 0.5 v2
v = √(2*9.8*0.35)
v = 2.62 m/s (without friction)


^^^^^^^

Why did they set potential energy equal to kinetic energy? I don't understand :(
 
Physics news on Phys.org


riseofphoenix said:
Why did they set potential energy equal to kinetic energy? I don't understand :(
Mechanical energy is conserved:

KEA + PEA = KEB + PEB

Let A be the highest point, where the swing is released. Thus, KEA = 0.

If you measure PE from the lowest point (point B), then PEB = 0.

That gives you:

PEA = KEB
 


Doc Al said:
Mechanical energy is conserved:

KEA + PEA = KEB + PEB

Let A be the highest point, where the swing is released. Thus, KEA = 0.

If you measure PE from the lowest point (point B), then PEB = 0.

That gives you:

PEA = KEB

What do you mean by "mechanical energy" though?
 


riseofphoenix said:
What do you mean by "mechanical energy" though?
Mechanical energy means the sum of KE + PE.

I assume you've been studying conservation of energy?
 


Yes but I'm a little confused...ok so...

The girl is swinging.

When the swing is at an angle of 28 degrees, (slow mo) she stops, and at that point you have potential energy...

When the swing moves forward again you no longer have potential energy (PE = 0), but this time, you have Kinetic energy...So, essentially, this problem deals with the law of conservation of energy, right? which is:

PEA + [STRIKE]KEA [/STRIKE]= [STRIKE]PEB[/STRIKE] + KEB

So that's why, PEA = KEB, right?
Which is,

mgh = (1/2)mv2

Right?

If so, then what do I did with the angle (theta) that they gave me? Where does that go in the equation above?
 
Last edited:


riseofphoenix said:
So, essentially, this problem deals with the law of conservation of energy, right? which is:

PEA + [STRIKE]KEA [/STRIKE]= [STRIKE]PEB[/STRIKE] + KEB

So that's why, PEA = KEB, right?
Right.

Which is,

(1/2)kx2 = (1/2)mv2

Right?
No, not right. The potential energy here is gravitational PE (mgh) not spring PE (which is 1/2kx2). No springs in this problem!
If so, then what do I did with the angle (theta) that they gave me? Where does that go in the equation above?
Once you have the correct expression for PE, you'll need the angle to figure out the height of the initial position.
 


mgh(1 - cos 28) = (1/2)mv2

I looked that up :(
Now my question is, would it ALWAYS be h(1 - cos θ) whenever I have a problem like this?
 


Sorry if I'm asking so many questions - I'm just trying to figure out how these things relate to each other so that I can go about answering any question like this!

Part b says:

If the speed of the child at the lowest position is 2.30 m/s, what is the mechanical energy lost due to friction?

What they did:

KE @ 2.62 m/sec = (1/2)(31)(2.62)^2 = 106.68 J

KE @ 2.30 m/sec = (1/2)(31)(2.30)^2 = 81.995 J

Therefore, energy lost to friction = 106.68 - 81.995 = 24.685 J

^^^^^^

My question is, how did they know to just subtract KE with v=2.30 by KE with 2.62?
 


riseofphoenix said:
mgh(1 - cos 28) = (1/2)mv2

I looked that up :(
Now my question is, would it ALWAYS be h(1 - cos θ) whenever I have a problem like this?
That depends on just how 'like' the problem is, doesn't it? Get the concept: To find the change in gravitational PE, you may need to determine the change in height. By whatever means necessary.
 
  • #10


riseofphoenix said:
My question is, how did they know to just subtract KE with v=2.30 by KE with 2.62?
They are really subtracting final energy from initial energy:

Initial Energy (at top) = Final Energy (at bottom) + Energy lost to friction
 
  • #11


riseofphoenix said:
mgh(1 - cos 28) = (1/2)mv2

I looked that up :(
Now my question is, would it ALWAYS be h(1 - cos θ) whenever I have a problem like this?

No, that comes from the geometry of the problem.

In general.. ΔPE = mgΔh

So you need to work out the change in height (Δh) using whatever information is given in the problem. You might have a similar problem where θ is specified differently. If in doubt make your own drawing.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K