Makise kurisu
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#1
Hi all, can someone pls help me understand the example I'm about to link up
0
reply
Makise kurisu
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#2
Name:  15508403467825041609276080455176.jpg
Views: 20
Size:  122.0 KB
0
reply
Makise kurisu
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#3
Why haven't they accounted for the component of weight acting down the slope along with friction as the "total" work done?
0
reply
Makise kurisu
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#4
Bump
0
reply
Makise kurisu
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#5
Any clarification wud be much appreciated
0
reply
Luqman.ldn
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report 11 months ago
#6
The loss in Energy is the work done due to friction, it's the same formula rearranged.

If there was no friction ∆KE=∆GPE, but because there is ∆KE = ∆GPE + work done due to frictional forces
0
reply
Makise kurisu
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#7
Thanks for the reply...and ur saying that the weights parallel component doesn't cause the loss of energy?
0
reply
Makise kurisu
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#8
(Original post by Luqman.ldn)
The loss in Energy is the work done due to friction, it's the same formula rearranged.

If there was no friction ∆KE=∆GPE, but because there is ∆KE = ∆GPE + work done due to frictional forces
..
0
reply
Luqman.ldn
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#9
Report 11 months ago
#9
I'd presume it's taken into account because the velocity of the particle is decreasing. We are gaining GPE because it has velocity but that velocity is decreasing due to the component of gravity acting on it.
As velocity decreases kinetic energy also decreases, so yes it does cause a loss in energy.
Last edited by Luqman.ldn; 11 months ago
0
reply
Makise kurisu
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#10
(Original post by Luqman.ldn)
I'd presume it's taken into account because the velocity of the particle is decreasing. We are gaining GPE because it has velocity but that velocity is decreasing due to the component of gravity acting on it.
As velocity decreases kinetic energy also decreases, so yes it does cause a loss in energy.
So then surely should be factored in along with friction equating to the loss in energy rit?
0
reply
Luqman.ldn
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#11
Report 11 months ago
#11
(Original post by Makise kurisu)
So then surely should be factored in along with friction equating to the loss in energy rit?
We have, the loss in kinetic energy.
0
reply
Sir Cumference
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 11 months ago
#12
(Original post by Makise kurisu)
Thanks for the reply...and ur saying that the weights parallel component doesn't cause the loss of energy?
This is what GPE is. Notice the expression they used for GPE:

2 x 9.8 x xsin(45)

If you found work done against gravity then you would get the same thing.
0
reply
Makise kurisu
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#13
I see, thanks everybody!
0
reply
Makise kurisu
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#14
Name:  IMG-20190222-WA0004.jpeg
Views: 20
Size:  119.4 KBso the second bold point was a bit misleading, because that mentioned 'total work done' right?
0
reply
Makise kurisu
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#15
Whilst in the example, the work done against gravity was not included
0
reply
Luqman.ldn
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#16
Report 11 months ago
#16
The work done against gravity is included, it's MGH.
mg is the force and h is the distance moved in the direction of the force.
0
reply
Makise kurisu
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#17
Hmm...but now if u read the text between the bold points it implies that gravity has no affect on the total energy change of an object, doesn't that contradict with what the above posts establish?
0
reply
Luqman.ldn
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#18
Report 11 months ago
#18
(Original post by Makise kurisu)
Hmm...but now if u read the text between the bold points it implies that gravity has no affect on the total energy change of an object, doesn't that contradict with what the above posts establish?
gravity cannot affect the total energy change, an external force can. Because if ∆KE=∆GPE and total energy= ∆KE ∆GPE, if GPE does change Ur total energy doesn't change, but when there is another external force acting, it's the only thing affecting the total energy.
Last edited by Luqman.ldn; 11 months ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • University of Warwick
    Warwick Business School Postgraduate
    Thu, 20 Feb '20
  • St George's, University of London
    Postgrad open day Postgraduate
    Thu, 20 Feb '20
  • University of Hertfordshire
    All Subjects Undergraduate
    Sat, 22 Feb '20

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (222)
67.68%
No (106)
32.32%

Watched Threads

View All