Gravitation Potential Energy -- Questions about calculating the sign of GPE

AI Thread Summary
Gravitational potential energy (GPE) is context-dependent, with its sign determined by the chosen reference point for zero potential. When calculating changes in GPE, the formula mghf - mg0 indicates the signed change, while mgh0 - mghf shows the loss in potential energy. Generally, GPE is considered negative when using the convention that potential at infinity is zero. As an object rises, its GPE becomes less negative, indicating a positive change in energy. Understanding these principles clarifies the calculations and interpretations of gravitational potential energy.
Quantum Psi Inverted
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
When does one use mgh0-mghf, and when does one use mghf-mg0? Is all gravitation potential energy necessarily negative?
Relevant Equations
E=(m/2)(vf^2-v0^2)+mg(hf-h0)
PE=mg(h0-hf)
I believe that this is due to context of application, but now, I'm starting to doubt myself. For example, a helicopter lifting itself has positive PE change. I really don't intuitively understand how this works. Can someone kindly explain this to me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Relative to the ground, GPE (gravitational potential energy) is always positive. A change in GPE can be positve or negative.
 
Quantum Psi Inverted said:
Homework Statement: When does one use mgh0-mghf, and when does one use mghf-mg0? Is all gravitation potential energy necessarily negative?
Those are two different questions.

Assuming the 0 and f are supposed to indicate initial and final heights, mghf-mg0 gives you the (signed) change in PE. mgh0-mghf gives you the loss in PE, obviously.

All "potentials" are in principle relative, i.e. it is up to you to choose where the zero potential is. However, a convention commonly used, both for GPE and electrostatic, is that the potential at infinity is zero. That makes all other GPEs negative.
At a greater height, the potential is less negative, so is greater than at a lower height.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top