Answer:
I would say that I agree with the one that said that each hill must be lower than the previous one and use the principle of conservation of energy to explain.
Explanation:
Roller coaster are usually designed such that its total energy remains conserved at any point on the track. Now, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be conserved over time. At certain height on the track, the total energy of the roller coaster is in form of potential energy, which gets converted to kinetic energy as soon as it starts sliding down the hill till get to the hill's endpoint where it has maximum kinetic energy. The cycle of sliding from a high point on the track to a low point on the track means there is potential energy is converted to kinetic energy and kinetic energy then converts back to potential energy and the cycle continues.
However, due to the effect of gravity and frictional force between the track and the coaster, the energy of the coaster is gradually reduces, so it becomes a bit difficult for the coaster to move to the next hill of the same height. It is for this reason that each hill must be lower than the previous one, so that the coaster can overcome the next hill's height with its reduced energy until it loses all its energy and comes to a stop.
That's a great idea ! A wind turbine (windmill) or solar panels
on the roof of every WalMart, but don't stop there. Let K-Mart,
Target, Sears, Macy's, 7-11, McDonald's, and Subway in on it too.
In fact, why not place them on the roof of every house and
apartment building too ?
Just one question: Who's going to pay for them ?
_________________________________________________
The biggest single year-round residential use of energy in the
USA is to heat up and keep a ready supply of hot water. So the
single biggest residential use of energy could be eliminated with
a simple solar water heater on the roof of every house. From my
own personal observation, I know that Israel is there now, but here
in the USA, it's apparently not worth the time, effort, or expense ! ? !
Answer:
Sam is providing the biggest power i.e. 50 W
Explanation:
Sam is moving house and is carrying a 300N box of books up a flight of steps 5m high, it takes her 30 seconds.
Sam's power :
Gary follows her carrying a bag of clothes doing 1000 J of work; it only takes him 25 seconds.
Gary's power :
So, it is clear that Sam is providing the biggest power.
Explanation:
They probably put "rolls without slipping" in there to indicate that there is no loss in friction; or that the friction is constant throughout the movement of the disk. So it's more of a contingency part of the explanation of the problem.
(Remember how earlier on in Physics lessons, we see "ignore friction" written into problems; it just removes the "What about [ ]?" question for anyone who might ask.)
In this case, you can't ignore friction because the disk wouldn't roll without it.
As far as friction producing a torque... I would say that friction is a result of the torque in this case. And because the point of contact is, presumably, the ground, the friction is tangential to the disk. Meaning the friction is linear and has no angular component.
(You could probably argue that by Newton's 3rd Law there should be some opposing torque, but I think that's outside of the scope of this problem.)
Hopefully this helps clear up the misunderstanding for you.
