Work done accelerating up a hill

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the work done by a hiker carrying a 15.0 kg backpack up a 10.0m hill with constant acceleration versus constant velocity. It highlights that while carrying the backpack at constant velocity involves work against gravity alone, accelerating requires additional force parallel to the displacement, resulting in greater total work. The conversation clarifies that this extra work contributes to an increase in kinetic energy, which is essential in understanding the dynamics of the situation. The role of gravity as a conservative force is acknowledged, but the additional force needed for acceleration is emphasized. Ultimately, the hiker's work is greater when accelerating due to the need to overcome both gravitational and inertial forces.
Physics_5
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Alright so I have a question on the work done with constant acceleration up a hill. I was working an example problem that asked for the work a hiker must do on a 15.0 kg backback to carry it up a hill of height h = 10.0m with the hiker keeping a constant velocity (http://i1298.photobucket.com/albums/ag60/Physics_5/IMG_07961.jpg). I understood the solution when the problem had a constant velocity but not with a constant acceleration.

I reasoned that if the hiker was accelerating up the hill, then a force acting parallel to the displacement was also present in addition to the force the hiker exerts upwards against gravity on the backpack. This would seem to indicate that the total force parallel to the displacement was greater than with constant velocity and that the work in the second situation was greater than the first. I didn't think that made sense because gravity is a conservative force but I don't understand why this explanation would not be valid.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Compared to the first setup, the hiker will reach the top with some velocity (can you calculate it?). You can use this to calculate the required energy. You don't have to care about details of the climbing process. Anyway: To accelerate, the hiker has to apply an additional force along the direction of motion.
 
Ok now I get it. All the extra work he does contributes to a higher kinetic energy. Thank you very much.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top