Time at given speed in freefall

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves determining the time it takes for a car, starting from rest, to reach a speed of 90 km/h after rolling off a vertical cliff. The context is related to kinematics and free fall under the influence of gravity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the appropriate equations of motion and the need to convert units from km/h to m/s. There are attempts to solve for time using different equations, and questions arise about the assumptions made regarding air resistance and the nature of acceleration.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants offering various approaches and questioning the validity of certain equations. Some guidance has been provided regarding unit conversion and the proper application of kinematic equations. There is no explicit consensus on the final answer yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of unit consistency and question whether air resistance can be ignored in the problem setup. There is also a recognition of potential confusion regarding the equations of motion used.

KingNothing
Messages
880
Reaction score
4
Here is a problem from my book:

If a car rolls gently (initial velocity = 0) off a vertical cliff, how long does it take to reach 90km/h?

It seems easy, and I have been breezing through all the other ones like it's my job, but for some reason this one gets me. I knwo it's possible, but I just don't know how. The answer is supposed to be 2.6 seconds, but I somehow always wind up dividing 90 by 9.8. Any help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you familiar with the expression:

[tex]v(t) = v_0 + \frac{1}{2} a t^2[/tex]?

Just solve it for t.

- Warren
 
Alright, thanks...but I still seem to get the wrong answer consistently. I do:

90=0.5(9.8)t^2
90=4.9t^2
18.37=t^2
t=4.29

what is going wrong?
 
Originally posted by Decker
what is going wrong?
Convert 90 km/hr into m/s first, so that your units will agree.

- Warren
 
Thanks, I don't know how I skipped that. That's what happened on the quiz, too. Did all of them perfectly, then on one forgot to convert.

Also, is it just me, or should I really end up with about 2.26 seconds?
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Decker
Also, is it just me, or should I really end up with about 2.26 seconds?

I get 2.258769757 on my calculator using g = 9.8 m/s^2.

Does the problem explicitly say we can ignore air resistance?
 
Chroot: I must confess that during the several days I spent in calculus (and physics) class, I never saw an equation that said
"[tex]v(t) = v_0 + \frac{1}{2} a t^2[/tex]"

I do recall seeing one that said "[tex]v(t)= v_0+ at[/tex]" and one that said "[tex]d(t)= d_0+ v_0t+ \frac{1}{2}at^2[/tex]".

Assuming no air resistance and that a= -9.8 m/s2, with v0= 0, v(t)= -9.8 t m/s. Since there are 1000m in a km and 60*60= 3600 sec in and hour, -90 km/hr= -90 *1000/3600= -25 m/s.
-25= -9.8 t so t= 25/9.8= 2.55 seconds.

Looks pretty easy to me (as long as you don't listen to Chroot!).

(C'mon, who is it that's using Chroot's good name?)
 
I'm sure it was just an oversight. :smile:.
 
Last edited:
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

*slinks into a corner and hides*

- Warren
 
  • #10
Or you can use

v^2 = v0^2 + 2aΔx.

Solve for Δx and then time is just Δx/v.
 
  • #11
Optimus, you can't do that because once you've solved for the distance its fallen, dividing by v means you are assuming that the velocity is constant, which it obviously isn't.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by chroot
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

*slinks into a corner and hides*

- Warren


GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!


I blindly assumed chroot's equation was correct.

Give me back the two minutes of my life I wasted!
 
  • #13
Originally posted by Warr
Optimus, you can't do that because once you've solved for the distance its fallen, dividing by v means you are assuming that the velocity is constant, which it obviously isn't.

Besides, x is not given.
 
  • #14
Originally posted by Warr
Optimus, you can't do that because once you've solved for the distance its fallen, dividing by v means you are assuming that the velocity is constant, which it obviously isn't.

Actually, under a constant acceleration, you can compute the time using the average velocity.

Given the final velocity and displacement, to solve for t:

[tex]t = \frac{2 d}{V_f}[/tex] or

[tex]\frac{V_f}{2} = \frac{d}{t}[/tex]

Vf/2 when Vi=0 and acceleration is constant gives the average velocity.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
10K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
7K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K