You are Here: Home >< Maths

# M2 Inclined Plane Problem watch

1. I don't understand why sometimes the weight component down the slope is ignored when calculating resistance and using it in things such as work done.
For example in question 5 part iii on June 2007 they ignore the weight, however in question 3 on June 2008 they take into account the weight acting down the slope. I suspect it is something to do with the constant resistive force given but it still remains a little unclear and I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on it.
2. (Original post by Gabenite)
I don't understand why sometimes the weight component down the slope is ignored when calculating resistance and using it in things such as work done.
For example in question 5 part iii on June 2007 they ignore the weight
They have already given you the work done in moving, so the weight has been taken into account.

however in question 3 on June 2008 they take into account the weight acting down the slope. I suspect it is something to do with the constant resistive force given but it still remains a little unclear and I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on it.
Here they haven't given you the work done, so the weight hasn't been taken into account.
3. (Original post by Zacken)
They have already given you the work done in moving, so the weight has been taken into account.

Here they haven't given you the work done, so the weight hasn't been taken into account.
that makes more sense but I'm still confused, in the question where work done is given you use change in energy = 8000 - 60*distance but I don't see why it isn't 8000 - (60 + weight down slope)*distance because surely they are both acting against it, is it possible the weight is counted within the 60N resistive force or have I completely lost the plot?
4. (Original post by Gabenite)
that makes more sense but I'm still confused, in the question where work done is given you use change in energy = 8000 - 60*distance but I don't see why it isn't 8000 - (60 + weight down slope)*distance because surely they are both acting against it, is it possible the weight is counted within the 60N resistive force or have I completely lost the plot?
You need to do:

work done in moving from A to B (this includes the weight) = increase in KE + increase in GPE + work done against resistance force.
5. (Original post by Zacken)
You need to do:

work done in moving from A to B (this includes the weight) = increase in KE + increase in GPE + work done against resistance force.
but why isn't work done against the weight like it is done against the resistive force?

edit: do you mean the 8000 = work done moving from A to B - work done against weight. If this is the case how am I to tell in the question whether to ignore the weight or not?
6. (Original post by Gabenite)
but why isn't work done against the weight like it is done against the resistive force?

edit: do you mean the 8000 = work done moving from A to B - work done against weight. If this is the case how am I to tell in the question whether to ignore the weight or not?
Because the word done against weight has already been given to you as 8000.
7. (Original post by Zacken)
Because the word done against weight has already been given to you as 8000.
but I thought the 8000 was the driving force * the distance up the plane so I don't see how it includes the weight?
8. (Original post by Gabenite)
but I thought the 8000 was the driving force * the distance up the plane so I don't see how it includes the weight?
That doesn't make sense. Force has units newtons, 8000 is the work done and has units joules. How could it be the driving force?
9. (Original post by Zacken)
That doesn't make sense. Force has units newtons, 8000 is the work done and has units joules. How could it be the driving force?

Well yes that's why I said it was the driving force * distance up the slope
10. (Original post by Gabenite)
Well yes that's why I said it was the driving force * distance up the slope
Oh sorry, my bad. It certainly includes that, but it also includes the weight. It's work done from moving from A to B and that includes both the driving force and the weight.

So it's like saying you'd re-use driving force again in your equation, that doesn't make sense because it's already been accounted for in the 8000; just as weight has been.
11. (Original post by Zacken)
Oh sorry, my bad. It certainly includes that, but it also includes the weight. It's work done from moving from A to B and that includes both the driving force and the weight.

So it's like saying you'd re-use driving force again in your equation, that doesn't make sense because it's already been accounted for in the 8000; just as weight has been.

But in that case why has the 60N not been accounted for the in 8000?
12. (Original post by Gabenite)
But in that case why has the 60N not been accounted for the in 8000?
Because that's due to the constant resistive force.
13. (Original post by Zacken)
Because that's due to the constant resistive force.

But the work done moving from A to B must include this resistive force since work has to be done against it to move from A to B?
14. (Original post by Gabenite)
I don't understand why sometimes the weight component down the slope is ignored when calculating resistance and using it in things such as work done.
For example in question 5 part iii on June 2007 they ignore the weight, however in question 3 on June 2008 they take into account the weight acting down the slope. I suspect it is something to do with the constant resistive force given but it still remains a little unclear and I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on it.
Firstly the June2007 question is about work and energy, whereas the June 2008 question is about power and therefore uses F = ma. In the latter case, all of the forces must be included in f = ma,so that includes the weight.

Now to the "they've ignored the weight" in the 2007 question. "Gravitational potential energy" is another name for the "work done against the weight" so you must only include one of these, otherwise you are including the same term twice.
15. Ko
(Original post by tiny hobbit)
Firstly the June2007 question is about work and energy, whereas the June 2008 question is about power and therefore uses F = ma. In the latter case, all of the forces must be included in f = ma,so that includes the weight.

Now to the "they've ignored the weight" in the 2007 question. Gravitational potential energy" is another name for the "work done against the weight" so you must onlt include one of these, otherwise you are includng the same term twice.

Yes of course that makes sense because mg is the force and h is the distance I get it now thank you, both of you
I cannot believe I missed this before it makes so much sense now thanks so much

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: April 10, 2016
Today on TSR

### Three reasons you may feel demotivated right now

...and how to stay positive

### Can I get A*s if I start revising now?

Discussions on TSR

• Latest
Poll
Useful resources

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Discussions on TSR

• Latest

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE