k02033
Member
i just substituted 2 input values into an hsc functions and subtracted the output values, demonstrating how to properly use the equation. don't think that is uni physics.
this is uni physics :
Last edited:
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Gravitation Potential energy. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter kwabon
- Start date
this is uni physics :
Bank$
Member
This question is soooo simple !
Just use common sense guys.
GPE is a very WEAK force of attraction, the potential energy in the chemical bonds (i.e. fuel) is much greater than what is due to gravity. This is proven as it can cause the rocket to go up.
hence the loss in energy from the breaking of bonds is greater than the energy gained from the change in altitude.
also there is a change in mass thus even less potential energy due to gravity
K02003 is right but his explanation is a bit hard for hsc physics to understand.
Just use common sense guys.
GPE is a very WEAK force of attraction, the potential energy in the chemical bonds (i.e. fuel) is much greater than what is due to gravity. This is proven as it can cause the rocket to go up.
hence the loss in energy from the breaking of bonds is greater than the energy gained from the change in altitude.
also there is a change in mass thus even less potential energy due to gravity
K02003 is right but his explanation is a bit hard for hsc physics to understand.
kwabon
Banned
ok enough is enough.
have a look at what i wrote for that particular question, and then have a look at the answers.
first one is the answer,
second one is an extract from my trials
sorry its upside down.
have a look at what i wrote for that particular question, and then have a look at the answers.
first one is the answer,
second one is an extract from my trials
sorry its upside down.
kwabon
Banned
thats what i wrote in the test, and i did not get full marks for it, apparently because decreases.
annabackwards
<3 Prophet 9
You have a dodgy teacher, argue with her/him because every other school realised the mistake and had enough sense to change it. You should get at least 2/3 and you gave one reason - i wouldn't get 3 marks for that answer at my school because it didn't utilise the equation, but you can try
The sample answer is wrong.
Yes GPE is proportional to mass, so as fuel is lost the GPE decreases if it remained at the same height.
GPE is negatively inversely proportional to the distance from the earth. So for the same mass as the rocket propels further from the Earth its GPE increases.
Combining these two, because the rate of fuel expulsion is greater than the rate of altitude gain, the overall GPE of the rocket will decrease.
The last paragraph wasn't provided enough detai in the question but is based on the fact, that the rocket is first taking off it ejects a large amount of gas but doesn't move much.
So your answer is worth 2 out of 3 if they were expecting to realise the mass change but it could have been better worded to ensure you were to think of the fuel and rocket together.
Also explaining what is happening also needs to say where it is going to. So if you are saying it is decreasing, you should be saying what it is being transformed into. If you are saying it is increasing, then you should be saying what it is transformed from.
Yes GPE is proportional to mass, so as fuel is lost the GPE decreases if it remained at the same height.
GPE is negatively inversely proportional to the distance from the earth. So for the same mass as the rocket propels further from the Earth its GPE increases.
Combining these two, because the rate of fuel expulsion is greater than the rate of altitude gain, the overall GPE of the rocket will decrease.
The last paragraph wasn't provided enough detai in the question but is based on the fact, that the rocket is first taking off it ejects a large amount of gas but doesn't move much.
So your answer is worth 2 out of 3 if they were expecting to realise the mass change but it could have been better worded to ensure you were to think of the fuel and rocket together.
Also explaining what is happening also needs to say where it is going to. So if you are saying it is decreasing, you should be saying what it is being transformed into. If you are saying it is increasing, then you should be saying what it is transformed from.
Last edited:
darkchild69
Nanotechnologist
Poor question...
There is always something wrong in the CSSA trials..
There is always something wrong in the CSSA trials..
k02033
Member
I think the question is still valid. The question is asking whether the overall potential energy of the system is increasing or decreasing. Its not asking whether the GRAVITATIONAL potential is increasing or decreasing.
Thats a wrong interpretation.
if the object is staying still within a gravitational field ie remain in the same height as you said, then gravity CAN NOT possibly do work on the object, so the object can not experience any GRAVITATIONAL potential change. So whatever potential change is occurring within the system, gravity is not responsible, so you are not allow to use U(x)=-GmM/r to interpret the situation
Last edited:
Did you bother to read the actual question?
http://community.boredofstudies.org...l-energy/19208d1252193036/scanned-picture.jpg
It states gravitational potential energy
You would use -GmM/r in the original situation and at the final situation and compare the two. The amount of potential energy is different. That isn't necessarily saying that gravity has changed the potential energy. If you have a rock. Remove part of the rock. The rocks GPE has decreased. The other part of the rock will still have GPE, which may be the same or different depending on where it has been moved to.
In this case the rockets GPE has changed because the fuel has been moved elsewhere. The fuel will still have GPE but it is no longer part of the rocket.
Last edited:
k02033
Member
i assume the 1st post of the this thread stated the question correctly, (i cant predict the student copy the q wrong!)
this is true, in fact we can say gravity definitely have not cause any potential change
not true
(assume all parts of the rock stays at the same location as you claimed in the below quote, this equivalent to a rocket staying the same place, losing mass somehow)
The key is that the there is some force of constraint doing whatever it takes to oppose the force of gravity, keeping the object stationary. it looks like GPE should change because the actual magnitude of the force of gravity is changing, but this is irrelevant because there is the force of constraint somewhere.
As soon as this is true, gravity doesn’t get a chance to pull the object anywhere, so it won’t do any work on the rock.
its mass changed probably because of a potential change, but we can definitely deduce that potential change is not gravitational potential change,
and i thought we were assuming all parts remained at the same location, so doesnt that contradict you initial claims?
Last edited:
kwabon
Banned
which equation you talking about?You have a dodgy teacher, argue with her/him because every other school realised the mistake and had enough sense to change it. You should get at least 2/3 and you gave one reason - i wouldn't get 3 marks for that answer at my school because it didn't utilise the equation, but you can try
Gpe = -gMm/r or Potential energy = mgh
No but when you say someone is wrong after the person has already posted the question and sample answer, then it shows you aren't reading all the answers.
No the key is that when something is made up or more than one thing it has a total GPE, that is made up of the some of the parts. If you separate it into the parts, then the total remains the same but the individual parts have less than the total overall.
The Catholic answer, which I have said was wrong for another reason as well, was trying to have the students say:
1. The Rocket is a system of fuel and ship
2. As the Rocket is launching, it is expelling the fuel, making the mass of the rocket less by the amount of the fuel being expelled.
3. Thus the mass of the rocket is now less, so the rocket GPE is now less.
IE.
So there are two things effecting the GPE of the rocket, the mass of fuel loss and the increase in distance from planet. Depending on which is occurring at a faster rate, then the GPE of the rocket may go up or down.
Bank$
Member
Exactly and including the loss of potential bond energy (from fuel burning) the net potential is going to be less
Did the question ask about net potential?
No, this statement is irrelevant and would be treated as such by the markers.
k02033
Member
this is fine, but you and i were analysing something that wasnt gaining in altitude, in which i believe you gave a wrong interpretation
k02033
Member
annabackwards
<3 Prophet 9
I'm talking about the first one, because we are talking about a rocket that is moving a long distance away from eath and out of Earth's gravitational field.
The second equation only works for objects that remain inside the Earth's gravitational field
k02033
Member
wait i realized what i said is a contradiction, in that how can something split into 2 distinct objects and then defining those 2 to have the same location. And after the rock has split, how can we say the GPE of the rock has changed? which part do we define to be the "rock"? i think some of the initial proposal doesnt make sense.
Last edited: