Question 1182591: A 0.5 kg block initially at rest on a frictionless horizontal surface is acted
upon by a force of 8.0 N for a distance of 4.0 m how much kinetic energy does the block gain
Found 4 solutions by mananth, ikleyn, CPhill, n2:
Answer by mananth(16949)   (Show Source):
You can put this solution on YOUR website!
Change in Kinetic energy = Work done on object
Work done = F * D
=8.8N *4m
= 35.2 J
Therefore, block gains
35.2 Joule of Kinetic energy.
Answer by ikleyn(53618)  (Show Source):
You can put this solution on YOUR website! .
A 0.5 kg block initially at rest on a frictionless horizontal surface is acted
upon by a force of 8.0 N for a distance of 4.0 m how much kinetic energy does the block gain
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The solution by @mananth and his answer both are incorrect.
I came to bring a correct solution.
Change in Kinetic energy = Work done on object
Work done = F * D = 8.0N *4 = 32 J
Therefore, block gains 32 Joule of Kinetic energy.
Solved correctly.
----------------------------
The given mass is irrelevant to the solution.
Answer by CPhill(2189)  (Show Source):
You can put this solution on YOUR website! Change in Kinetic energy = Work done on object
Work done = F * D
=8.8N *4m
= 35.2 J
Therefore, block gains
35.2 Joule of Kinetic energy.
Answer by n2(54)  (Show Source):
You can put this solution on YOUR website! .
Yesterday (Jan.19, 2026) I witnessed strange behavior from @CPhill on this forum.
A couple of days ago I refuted an incorrect solution provided by @mananth at this spot.
@mananth's solution was incorrect because he used incorrect numbers for his calculations.
As a result, @mananth's solution had nothing in common with the correct solution - which is why
I redid/corrected/fixed it.
Now @CPhill has copied and reposted this incorrect solution by @mananth again.
This is not the only such action by @CPhill.
Yesterday, @CPhill made several (about 15) other similar actions of the same kind with other posts
where I refuted @mananth's solutions.
I consider these @CPhyll's actions to be wrong, leading to a distortion of the truth on this forum.
Therefore, I strongly protest against such actions by @CPhill and consider it necessary that visitors
to this forum be aware of this.
I recommend to a reader to ignore the post by @CPhill.
|
|
|
