Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

Make your revision easier

Maths

Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

Equations

How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

Student revising

Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Study Planner

Create your own Study Planner

Never miss a deadline again

Polling station sign

Thinking about a maths degree?

Chat with other maths applicants

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.