What is the acceleration due to gravity on the distant planet?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Physicsit
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the acceleration due to gravity on a distant planet using a setup involving a ball suspended from a wire. The original poster presents their calculations based on wave speed in the wire and the tension created by the weight of the ball.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the validity of the original poster's calculations and the assumptions made regarding the acceleration due to gravity. There is a focus on the correct application of formulas related to wave speed and tension in the wire.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on the correct approach to calculating gravity, suggesting that the original poster reconsider their use of certain equations and the implications of the mass of the wire. Multiple interpretations of the problem are being explored, and there is an ongoing dialogue about the accuracy of calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the mass of the wire is negligible and emphasize the importance of using precise values in calculations to avoid rounding errors. The original poster's reliance on the acceleration due to gravity on Earth is questioned, as the context involves a different planet.

Physicsit
Can anyone verify my results below

To measure the acceleration due to gravity on a distant planet, an astronaut hangs a 0.085-kg ball from the end of a wire. The wire has a length of 1.5 m and a linear density of 3.1 ´ 10-4 kg/m. Us-ing electronic equipment, the astronaut measures the time for a transverse pulse to travel the length of the wire and obtains a value of 0.083 s. The mass of the wire is negligible compared to the mass of the ball. Recalling that the speed, v, of a small-amplitude wave on a string is given by
v=squareroot(F/(m/L))

mball= .085 kg
L= 1.5 m
m/L = 3.1 * 10^-4 kg/m (linear density)
t= 0.083 s
F=Tension=mg= (.085 kg)(9.8 m/s^2) F=.833 N

v=squareroot(.833(3.1*10-4) = 51.8 m/s

v= initial velocity + at

initial velocity=0

51.8 = 0 + a(.083)

51.8/.083 = a

acceleration= 624 m/s^2
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No.

In this situation, g is not 9.8 m/s^2.

9.8 m/s^2 is the acceleration due gravity near the surface of the earth. You are trying to find the equivalent quantity at the surface of that distant planet. The equation you are using, I would write as:

v = √(T/μ)

where v is the velocity of the wave, T is the tension in the wire, and μ is the mass per unit length of the wire. Note that T = mg in this situation is the weight of the ball only because the ball is suspended from, and therefore pulling down on, the wire. Since you are told that mass of the wire is negliglble, the weight of the ball is the only source of tension.

The weight of the ball THERE is mg. Therefore, g is the answer you are looking for. V, you are given (since you have been told the length of the wire and the amount of time it takes for the wave to traverse it).

Try again & see what you get.

PS: this equation:
v= initial velocity + at
has no applicability here at all. It applies to a moving object undergoing a constant rate of acceleration, such as an object in free fall, for example. (You understand that the ball is just hanging from the wire, not falling, don't you?)
 
Last edited:
Alright this should be it then

thank you for the guidance


does this look better


v=distance/time 18.07 m/s

18.07 m/s = ã(F/(m/L))

18.07= ã((m*g)/(m/L))

18.07 = ã((.083*g)/(3.1 * 10^-4))

((18.07^2)*(3.1 * 10^-4))/.083 = g

g =1.22 m/s^2
 
Close. I get 1.19 m/s2

The difference is that you used rounded intermediate results in your calculation.

If, instead, you rearrange the equations like this:
v = Δs/Δt
and
v = √(mg/μ)
Δs/Δt = √(mg/μ)
(Δs/Δt)2 = mg/μ
g = μ(Δs/Δt)2/m

Now enter the original amounts in your calculator:
g = 3.1x10-4(1.5/.083)2/.085
you'll get
g = 1.19...

It's better to hold off rounding until the end, or at least keep one or two extra decimal places in the intermediate results & then finish rounding at the end.
 

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
10K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K