A car accelerates from rest to 50 km/hr and then from 50 km/hr to 100 km/hr . Assume there is no air drag.
In which case does the engine of the car do more work?
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
If you love science and need somewhere to learn the basics, try out our new course: Science Essentials
Your solution hadn't been posted when I started adding my note regrading kinetic energy, but once I finished my edit I saw your solution. Just wanted you to know I wasn't copying; I had thought of adding the note before but didn't get around to it until I noticed the question had been selected as a POTW. :)
Log in to reply
Hey, that's fine-- and I hadn't read your entire solution, but only noticed that you started with elementary kinematics of accelerated motion. I posted a solution involving the work-energy theorem because (a) it is more efficient and (b) it does not involve the assumption of constant acceleration or straight-line motion. As a physics instructor, I much prefer students use W = Δ K for this kind of problem than equations of motion!
Log in to reply
Ok, great. You're right to guide your students in that direction for the reasons you outline. For some reason I automatically start with kinematics and then only afterwards remember that I could have used work-energy; a bad habit I can't seem to break. In some problems the kinematic approach provides more information, but not in a problem like this one.
Log in to reply
@Brian Charlesworth – Brian -- Lots of us are in that mindset of starting with kinematics and we do it first because that is the first method covered in introductory physics courses. That sticks with us. Then after that the work-energy method is covered - and we say wow!, that's neat -- but we have already cemented kinematics into our physics thinking toolbox. Those kinematic equations are nice to know for calculating acceleration, velocity (initial & final), distance, time, etc.
Log in to reply
@Jesse Otis – Yes, that is exactly my experience. Thanks for letting me know that I'm not alone in that mindset. :)
Log in to reply
@Brian Charlesworth – It's a wonder that I learned what I did in the first introductory physics courses (College Physics I & II) that I had. I did not have any physics at all in high school (I was a math & physics idiot) and stopped schooling after a year of what was then called Daytona Beach (FL) Junior College. However, I went back to 'real' college when I was 32. I took CP I & II in summer terms; they packed the usual 15-week semester into 4 weeks; we spent Monday through Friday from 8am to 10am in class and from 10:15am to noon in lab. I had to walk out of the classroom and down the hallway every once in a while because I couldn't absorb it fast enough. But amazingly I liked it and did well in it. The following full-length semester I took University Physics I (they had to teach me the calculus and I was taking calculus from the math department at the same time) and got an A, and same thing with UP II the next semester. I had started as a chemistry major and added physics as a second major. LOADS of work for me to learn all that. The best job of my life was teaching physics labs in the physical science department of the Daytona Beach (FL) campus of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Then the economy tanked and they eliminated my position in 2007; I was devastated - and haven't recovered since.
Log in to reply
@Jesse Otis – I'm sorry you took a hit from the Recession. I hope better days lie ahead for you.
Log in to reply
@Brian Charlesworth – Thanks. You probably have no idea how much I hope that too.
What is potw?
The vehicle did 3 times the work in second half. The engine of the car did the same work.
Log in to reply
Mohit -- The engine is the part of the vehicle that does the work.
Nice. :-)
What about forward momentum? Moving an object from a rested position requires more work than to keep it moving along the same trajectory. That's why it uses more fuel in stop and go traffic than it does just cruising at a set velocity.
Log in to reply
You are comparing acceleration from rest and maintaining a constant speed.
This problem compares acceleration from rest and further acceleration from a non-zero speed.
Those are two different things. Accelerating from rest may take more work than maintaining a constant speed (which, in the absence of frictional forces would not require work at all!), but accelerating from non-zero speed takes even more work.
I think that's a very valid point. Even with the condition that there's no friction from the air, there's still necessarily friction between the ground & the tires, the parts of the motor, etc.
Log in to reply
Friction between ground and tires is essential for the driving of the car. It converts rotational kinetic energy of the tires to translational kinetic energy of the entire car. However, it doesn't change the overall picture, since the rotational and translational kinetic energy of a vehicle that rolls without slipping are directly proportional.
The question itself is flawed; define work as it pertains to an engine. Are we talking torque, rpm's, horse power, fuel consumption, heat generated by friction, etc.? The question is, at which stage of acceleration is the engine working harder. Which in my mind equates to, when is it burning more fuel.
Log in to reply
That may be true; and in reality the car must battle air resistance as well as other frictional forces. However, that does not change the correct answer. Air resistance will only increase with speed; doubling the speed requires about eight times more power to keep the vehicle going. Thus the engine will have to do much more than 3x as much work in the second part of the motion.
So what about the increased force needed, due to static friction, to get the car moving from rest? Wouldn't that mean it could easily take more energy to go from 0-50 than from 50-100?
The work done is W = F d = m a d , where m is the mass of the car, a the (assumed constant) acceleration and d the distance over which the car accelerates.
Now v f 2 = v i 2 + 2 a d ⟹ d = 2 a v f 2 − v i 2 ⟹ W = m a d = m a 2 a v f 2 − v i 2 = 2 1 m ( v f 2 − v i 2 ) ,
so since 1 0 0 2 − 5 0 2 = 3 × ( 5 0 2 − 0 2 ) , the work done going from 50 km/hr to 100 km/hr will be more, (in fact 3 times more), than going from rest to 50 km/hr.
Note that, in fact, we do not need to make any assumptions about the constancy of the acceleration. Any work done by the engine will go into the kinetic energy E k of the car, (assuming that the road is level). Since E k = 2 1 m v 2 and W = Δ E k , and since again 1 0 0 2 − 5 0 2 = 3 ( 5 0 2 − 0 2 ) , the work done going from 50 km/hr to 100 km/hr is greater.
Thank you for answering :-)
Using the Kinetic energy theoreme 2 1 m v 1 2 − 2 1 m v 2 2 = W ( F → ) we get W ( F 1 → ) W ( F 2 → ) = 5 0 2 − 0 2 1 0 0 2 − 5 0 2 = 3 . So the work done from 50km/h to 100km/h is three times the work done from 0km/h to 50km/h.
There is no reason to believe that h1 is the same as h2. The Kinetic Energy solution is better as it makes no assumptions about a1, a2, h1, h2, t1 or t2.
Log in to reply
You are right. My solution is more about instant force. I will change it.
Nice solution !
Can someone explain how to reconcile this solution with the Galilean point of view? Car goes from 0 to 50km/h in the Earth referential, engine does the work corresponding to this acceleration.
Now we place ourseve in the galilean referential (intertial frame of reference) that follows the car at 50km/h at this point. In this new frame, the car's speed is currently 0. Now the car accelerate to reach 50mk/h in this inertial frame. Engine should do the same amount of work as before (same gain of speed, starting from the same speed). And at this point, the car's speed is 100km/h in the earth 's inertial frame.
I understand how the solution computed from kenetic energy works, but both reasoning seem to conclude different things. Where am I missing something?
Log in to reply
The kinetic energy depends on the reference. So you can't compare the work done in two different references ! Hope you got it :)
Log in to reply
That may be true, but since the question was split into 2 separate acceleration events, what is wrong with thinking that in the second event (50 to 100), 50 isn't the "new zero?" The question seems poorly framed because it (confusingly) allows the reader to pose 2 different reference points.
Log in to reply
@Karl Meyer – P.S. For all you problem writers out there: I am an English teacher and I have to say that some of the worst, most obfuscating language is to be found in the word problems of math and physics texts. This certainly is not one of the worst examples I have seen, but it was confusing enough for me to get this easy question wrong.
Goes in the face of all fuel saving advice which declares that more fuel is needed to move from rest.
This question makes no sense. The reason is that we are not told exactly what "rest" means. For example, in empty space, velocity is always relative. So, since the question was articulated to have 2 parts, acceleration from 0 to 50 and then from 50 to 100, why should I not think that the work is the same since there really is no "zero" velocity?
We know that, Work = change in kinetic energy = K . E ( f i n a l ) − K . E ( i n i t i a l ) . [ Work energy theorem]
And, kinetic energy = 2 1 . m . v 2 . Where, m = m a s s and v = v e l o c i t y .
∴ In the first case, we have K . E ( i n i t i a l ) = 2 1 . m . 0 2 = 0 .
And, K . E ( f i n a l ) = 2 1 . m . 5 0 2
Which is 2 2 5 0 0 . m = 1 2 5 0 m .
So, The work done in the first case, K . E ( f i n a l ) − K . E ( i n i t i a l ) = 1 2 5 0 . m − 0 .
As the mass is constant in both the cases, we neglect it, so the work done = 1 2 5 0 .
Similarly, in the second case, we have K . E ( f i n a l ) − K . E ( i n i t i a l ) = 2 1 .( 1 0 0 2 − 5 0 2 )
Which is 2 7 5 0 0 = 3 7 5 0 .
So, work done in the second case is greater!
3 7 5 0 > 1 2 5 0
⇒ The work done in the second case is 3 times greater than the work done in the first case!
Consider the car accelerate with a constant acceleration of a from an initial velocity of u to final velocity of v , then the displacement s of the car is given by 2 a s = v 2 − u 2 , neglecting air drag.
Since work done W = F s , where F is the force exerted by the car engine, if the mass of the car be m , then W = F s = m a s = 2 m ( v 2 − u 2 ) ⟹ W ∝ v 2 − u 2 = k ( v 2 − u 2 ) , where k is a constant. Therefore, W 1 = ( 5 0 2 − 0 2 ) k = 2 5 0 0 k and W 2 = ( 1 0 0 2 − 5 0 2 ) k = 7 5 0 0 k . Therefore, W 2 or work for car accelerating from 50 km/hr to 100 km/hr is more.
We know that: W = K 2 − K 1 ⇔ W = 2 1 m u 2 2 − 2 1 m u 1 2 where u 2 , u 1 the final and starting velocities of an object respectively. If we input 5 0 and 0 for u 2 and u 1 respectively we get W 1 = − 2 5 0 0 2 1 m . Whereas inputing 1 0 0 and 5 0 for u 2 and u 1 respectively gives a result of W 2 = − 7 5 0 0 2 1 m . Therefore we conclude that W 2 = 3 W 1 so the Work is greater From 50 km/hr to 100 km/hr
Work done = change in kinetic energy ( from work energy theorem) m/2 (50^2 - 0) < m/2 (100^2 - 50^2) so in second case more work is done
From rest the car needs a force to put it in motion, therefore when it is in motion it needs no much force again since it is already in its kinetic state, so therefore the engine performs with less force making it to go faster easy with less effort.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
The amount of work is equal to the change in kinetic energy, K ∝ v 2 . If the kinetic energy at 50 km/h is K 0 , then the kinetic energy at 100 km/h is 4 K 0 .
Therefore the amount of work in the first part is K 0 − 0 = K 0 , and in the second part 4 K 0 − K 0 = 3 K 0 , which is three times more .