Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

November 01, 2025, 08:06:59 pm

Author Topic: Lift Questions  (Read 1718 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

azn_kiwi91

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Respect: 0
Lift Questions
« on: November 09, 2008, 05:59:23 pm »
0
K i came across this in some exam paper

A child travelling in a lift that is accelerating downwards at 2.4m/s2 has an apparent weight of 30 kg wt. When the lift is stationary, the child's weight in kg would be closest to....

I wasn't too sure what it meant by apparent weight. Anyone care to explain?
2007
Psychology - 46
2008
English - 41, Methods - 46, Specialist Mathematics - 50, Japanese - 36, Chemistry - 48

vce08

  • Guest
Re: Lift Questions
« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2008, 06:00:54 pm »
0
That would be the normal reaction force.
Thats why you do physics noob.

azn_kiwi91

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Respect: 0
Re: Lift Questions
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2008, 06:02:41 pm »
0
That would be the normal reaction force.
Thats why you do physics noob.

So apparent weight is the normal reaction force? But I thought weight was the force due to gravity. The reaction force is going up.
2007
Psychology - 46
2008
English - 41, Methods - 46, Specialist Mathematics - 50, Japanese - 36, Chemistry - 48

shinny

  • VN MVP 2010
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4327
  • Respect: +256
  • School: Melbourne High School
  • School Grad Year: 2008
Re: Lift Questions
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2008, 06:03:54 pm »
0
It's the 'apparent' weight because that's the force they're actually exerting on the floor since some of their real weight is lost due to the downwards acceleration. Then using action/reaction, the force the kid exerts on the floor is equal to the normal reaction force.
MBBS (hons) - Monash University

YR11 '07: Biology 49
YR12 '08: Chemistry 47; Spesh 41; Methods 49; Business Management 50; English 43

ENTER: 99.70


Captain

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 126
  • Respect: +1
Re: Lift Questions
« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2008, 07:04:21 pm »
0
apparent weight of 30 kg

Weight is Newtons, not kg's.

shinny

  • VN MVP 2010
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4327
  • Respect: +256
  • School: Melbourne High School
  • School Grad Year: 2008
Re: Lift Questions
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2008, 07:07:52 pm »
0
Isn't that why he said kg wt?
MBBS (hons) - Monash University

YR11 '07: Biology 49
YR12 '08: Chemistry 47; Spesh 41; Methods 49; Business Management 50; English 43

ENTER: 99.70


Captain

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 126
  • Respect: +1
Re: Lift Questions
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2008, 07:11:59 pm »
0
Isn't that why he said kg wt?

What the hell is "kg wt" ?

Collin Li

  • VCE Tutor
  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4957
  • Respect: +17
Re: Lift Questions
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2008, 07:14:17 pm »
0
1 kg wt = 9.8 Newtons

shinny

  • VN MVP 2010
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4327
  • Respect: +256
  • School: Melbourne High School
  • School Grad Year: 2008
Re: Lift Questions
« Reply #8 on: November 09, 2008, 07:15:29 pm »
0
1 kg-wt=1g Newtons=9.8 Newtons

It's just a more convenient unit to use at times to avoid having to write g after every weight force you give. I've seen it show up a few times in spesh papers.
MBBS (hons) - Monash University

YR11 '07: Biology 49
YR12 '08: Chemistry 47; Spesh 41; Methods 49; Business Management 50; English 43

ENTER: 99.70


Pandemonium

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
  • Respect: +1
Re: Lift Questions
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2008, 07:18:25 pm »
0
i think it's a good habit to use newtons instead of using kgwt notation because you can't use kgwt in dynamics. :( unfortunately.

Captain

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 126
  • Respect: +1
Re: Lift Questions
« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2008, 07:18:39 pm »
0
Good to know, never seen that notation before.