I have to answer this question. Isn't this wrong? We are just dealing in terms of work. No power, energy, etc. JUST Work=Force*Displacement.
2 flaws I see: Wouldn't your displacement go up in a zig zag path, and wouldn't the cosign of the angle between force and displacement go down? Force parallel = cos(theta) * weight (we solved for this some time ago). And the smaller the angle, the greater the cos. So these two things would cause work to go up.
Can someone explain this? Thanks!
2 flaws I see: Wouldn't your displacement go up in a zig zag path, and wouldn't the cosign of the angle between force and displacement go down? Force parallel = cos(theta) * weight (we solved for this some time ago). And the smaller the angle, the greater the cos. So these two things would cause work to go up.
Can someone explain this? Thanks!
-
The total work is equal to weight * height REGARDLESS of the path taken.
Use of the word 'easier' is the loose cannon in this question.
If it means you expend less work, the answer is NO.
If it means the power required is less, the answer is YES, because the zig-zag path will take a longer time, as the path is longer and you are presumably going at the same linear speed as case 1.
To output less power would seem IMHO to be 'easier'....
The parallel force is actually Fp = weight * sinΘ
Use of the word 'easier' is the loose cannon in this question.
If it means you expend less work, the answer is NO.
If it means the power required is less, the answer is YES, because the zig-zag path will take a longer time, as the path is longer and you are presumably going at the same linear speed as case 1.
To output less power would seem IMHO to be 'easier'....
The parallel force is actually Fp = weight * sinΘ