All categories

3 years ago

Compare and contrast potential and kinetic energy

2 answers:

7 0

Kinetic and Potential Energy HistoryA roller coaster train going down hill represents merely a complex case as a body is descending an inclined plane. Newton's first two laws relate force and acceleration, which are key concepts in roller coaster physics. At amusement parks, Newton's laws can be applied to every ride. These rides range from 'The Swings' to The 'Hammer'. Newton was also one of the developers of calculus which is essential to analyzing falling bodies constrained on more complex paths than inclined planes. A roller coaster rider is in an gravitational field except with the Principle of Equivalence.Potential EnergyPotential energy is the same as stored energy. The "stored" energy is held within the gravitational field. When you lift a heavy object you exert energy which later will become kinetic energy when the object is dropped. A lift motor from a roller coaster exerts potential energy when lifting the train to the top of the hill. The higher the train is lifted by the motor the more potential energy is produced; thus, forming a greater amount if kinetic energy when the train is dropped. At the top of the hills the train has a huge amount of potential energy, but it <span>has very little kinetic energy.Kinetic Energy The word "kinetic" is derived from the Greek word meaning to move, and the word "energy" is the ability to move. Thus, "kinetic energy" is the energy of motion --it's ability to do work. The faster the body moves the more kinetic energy is produced. The greater the mass and speed of an object the more kinetic energy there will be. Hope this helped:))))</span>

mariarad [96]3 years ago

3 0

Kinetic Energy is moving energy. And potential energy is air G that has the potential to be movie or not moving at all

You might be interested in

Hãy nêu sự tương tự giữa công của lực điện trong trường hợp này với công của trọng lực.

statuscvo [17]

Answer:

tốt ý bạn là gì?

Explanation:

6 0

3 years ago

A rock is thrown upward from the top of a 30 m building with a velocity of 5 m/s. Determine its velocity (a) When it falls back

castortr0y [4]

Answer:

a) 5 m/s downwards

b) 17.86 m/s

c) 24.82 m/s

d) 0.228

Explanation:

We can set the frame of reference with the origin on the top of the building and the X axis pointing down.

The rock will be subject to the acceleration of gravity. We can use the equation for position under constant acceleration and speed under constant acceleration:

X(t) = X0 + V0 * t + 1/2 * a * t^2

V(t) = V0 + a * t

In this case

X0 = 0

V0 = -5 m/s

a = 9.81 m/s^2

To know the speed it will have when it falls back past the original point we need to know when it will do it. When it does X will be 0.

0 = -5 * t + 1/2 * 9.81 * t^2

0 = t * (-5 + 4.9 * t)

One of the solutions is t = 0, but this is when the rock was thrown.

0 = -5 + 4.69 * t

4.9 * t = 5

t = 5 / 4.9

t = 1.02 s

Replacing this in the speed equation:

V(1.02) = -5 + 9.81 * 1.02 = 5 m/s (this is speed downwards because the X axis points down)

When the rock is at 15 m above the street it is 15 m under the top of the building.

15 = -5 * t + 1/2 * 9.81 * t^2

4.9 * t^s -5 * t - 15 = 0

Solving electronically:

t = 2.33 s

At that time the speed will be:

V(2.33) = -5 + 9.81 * 2.33 = 17.86 m/s

When the rock is about to reach the ground it is at 30 m under the top of the building:

30 = -5 * t + 1/2 * 9.81 * t^2

4.9 * t^s -5 * t - 30 = 0

Solving electronically:

t = 3.04 s

At this time it has a speed of:

V(3.04) = -5 + 9.81 * 3.04 = 24.82 m/s

---------------------

Power is work done per unit of time.

The work in this case is:

L = Ff * d

With Ff being the friction force, this is related to weight

Ff = μ * m * g

μ: is the coefficient of friction

L = μ * m * g * d

P = L/Δt

P = (μ * m * g * d)/Δt

Rearranging:

μ = (P * Δt) / (m * g * d)

1 horsepower is 746 W

20 minutes is 1200 s

μ = (746 * 1200) / (100 * 9.81 * 4000) = 0.228

8 0

3 years ago

If its wavelength were doubled, its energy would be If its wavelength were doubled, its energy would be 4E. 2E. 12E. 14E.

ANEK [815]

The wavelength was doubled, and its energy will be increased by 4 times.

looking at the formula

energy $E = MC^2$

also, $c = \lambda \times \nu$

hence it is clear from above that energy is directly proportional to the square of the wavelength.

hence, The wavelength was doubled, and its energy will be increased by 4 times.

<h3>What is Wavelength?</h3>

The distance over which a periodic wave's shape repeats is known as the wavelength in physics.
It is a property of both traveling waves and standing waves as well as other spatial wave patterns. It is the distance between two successive corresponding locations of the same phase on the wave, such as two nearby crests, troughs, or zero crossings.
The spatial frequency is the reciprocal of the wavelength. The Greek letter lambda is frequently used to represent wavelength.
The term wavelength is occasionally used to describe modulated waves, their sinusoidal envelopes, or waves created by the interference of several sinusoids.

To learn more about wavelength with the given link

brainly.com/question/13533093

#SPJ4

5 0

2 years ago

Which statement correctly describes the relationship between frequency and wavelength?

Len [333]

The relationship between the frequency and wavelength of a wave is given by the equation:

v=λf, where v is the velocity of the wave, λ is the wavelength and f is the frequency.

If we divide the equation by f we get:

λ=v/f

From here we see that the wavelength and frequency are inversely proportional. So as the frequency increases the wavelength decreases.

So the second statement is true: As the frequency of a wave increases, the shorter the wavelength is.

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

I need someone smart!

Ivanshal [37]

Answer:

If we are looking for evidence of something that exists outside of our visible Universe and leaves no trace within it, it seems that the idea of a Multiverse is fundamentally untestable. But there are all sorts of things that we cannot observe that we know must be true. Decades before we directly detected gravitational waves, we knew that they must exist, because we observed their effects.

Explanation:

Maybe helps lol

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers