Would KE be more if a ball was thrown at a smaller angle?

  • Thread starter Thread starter okgo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angle Ball
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between kinetic energy (KE) and the angle at which a ball is thrown. It highlights that if the initial speed remains constant, the total energy does not change, but the maximum height achieved can vary with different angles. A vertical throw results in the ball's velocity reaching zero at maximum height, while a horizontal throw maintains its velocity. This difference in height and velocity impacts the KE at various points in the ball's trajectory. Ultimately, the angle of projection affects the distribution of energy between kinetic and potential forms.
okgo
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
http://www.screencast.com/users/trinhn812/folders/Jing/media/bf95a29f-4bb7-4f18-8d2b-f0b90dc3af51

I'm not sure how KE would increase when the initial speed is still the same.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi okgo! :smile:

When the initial speed is the same, so is the total energy …

so if the maximum height is different, the KE there must be different also. :wink:
 
OKGO,
you can also think about the ball thrown in the limiting angles..vertical on one hand and horozontal on the other. In the former, the velocity slows to zero at maximum height; in the latter it does not change velocity.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces not real just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

Phsyics Kinematics: cannonball shot straight up
Replies
5
Views
2K
B Understanding Physics for Coding Collision of 2 Balls
Replies
14
Views
3K
A ball is thrown w/initial speed vi at an angle 𝜃i with the horizontal
Replies
5
Views
1K
Two balls thrown from bridge one upwards, other downwards?
Replies
21
Views
7K
Monochromatic light and reflection
Replies
6
Views
3K
Plagued by Snell's law and geometry
Replies
1
Views
1K
How far from the lightbulb can you stand to see it? photon problem
Replies
1
Views
1K
Two balls one thrown up and other down
Replies
16
Views
1K
Throwing a ball from a train at an angle
Replies
2
Views
3K
Why would voltage stay the same when a dielectric is introduced?
Replies
2
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top