Back
to top
a question on power -physics
Watch this threadPage 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
JanaALEVEL
Badges:
10
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
A driver notices that her 1080-kg car, when in neutral, slows down from 95 km/hr to 65 km/hr in about 7.0s on a flat horizontal road. Approximately what power (watts and hp) is needed to keep the car traveling at a constant 80 km/h?
Here's what I did, I calculated the energy I would need to oppose the 95-65 change and then I added the energy needed to move at 80 km/hr then I divided by 7 . I think I have a misconception + a mistake somewhere because the book's answer is different. Can someone tell me where I went wrong ?
Here's what I did, I calculated the energy I would need to oppose the 95-65 change and then I added the energy needed to move at 80 km/hr then I divided by 7 . I think I have a misconception + a mistake somewhere because the book's answer is different. Can someone tell me where I went wrong ?
0
reply
Eimmanuel
Badges:
13
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report
#2
(Original post by JanaALEVEL)
A driver notices that her 1080-kg car, when in neutral, slows down from 95 km/hr to 65 km/hr in about 7.0s on a flat horizontal road. Approximately what power (watts and hp) is needed to keep the car traveling at a constant 80 km/h?
Here's what I did, I calculated the energy I would need to oppose the 95-65 change and then I added the energy needed to move at 80 km/hr then I divided by 7 . I think I have a misconception + a mistake somewhere because the book's answer is different. Can someone tell me where I went wrong ?
A driver notices that her 1080-kg car, when in neutral, slows down from 95 km/hr to 65 km/hr in about 7.0s on a flat horizontal road. Approximately what power (watts and hp) is needed to keep the car traveling at a constant 80 km/h?
Here's what I did, I calculated the energy I would need to oppose the 95-65 change and then I added the energy needed to move at 80 km/hr then I divided by 7 . I think I have a misconception + a mistake somewhere because the book's answer is different. Can someone tell me where I went wrong ?
We don’t need to supply a force to cause an object to move at constant velocity, this means that no energy is required, too.
In the presence of frictional force, we would need to counteract the frictional force to cause the object to move at constant velocity.
So you don’t need to add the energy needed to move at 80 km/hr.
0
reply
JanaALEVEL
Badges:
10
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
(Original post by Eimmanuel)
We don’t need to supply a force to cause an object to move at constant velocity, this means that no energy is required, too.
In the presence of frictional force, we would need to counteract the frictional force to cause the object to move at constant velocity.
So you don’t need to add the energy needed to move at 80 km/hr.
We don’t need to supply a force to cause an object to move at constant velocity, this means that no energy is required, too.
In the presence of frictional force, we would need to counteract the frictional force to cause the object to move at constant velocity.
So you don’t need to add the energy needed to move at 80 km/hr.
okay 1 more (dumb) question
If I'm contradicting the frictional force, aren't I returning the velocity V to 95 ? Don't I want it to be 80 ?
0
reply
Eimmanuel
Badges:
13
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report
#4
(Original post by JanaALEVEL)
If I'm contradicting the frictional force, aren't I returning the velocity V to 95 ? Don't I want it to be 80 ?
If I'm contradicting the frictional force, aren't I returning the velocity V to 95 ? Don't I want it to be 80 ?
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
