Is the Book's Answer to the Relative Velocity Problem Incorrect?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a perceived discrepancy between the solution to a relative velocity problem involving rain and a man's velocity, as presented in a textbook. The poster argues that their calculated answer, which yields a ratio of m/r = 2/sqrt(5) for tan(theta), is correct, while the book provides the reciprocal, sqrt(5)/2. This inconsistency raises questions about the reliability of the book's answers for similar problems. The poster seeks clarification on who is consistently making this mistake in the context of relative velocity. The conversation highlights the importance of accurate problem-solving in physics and the potential for errors in educational materials.
manjuvenamma
Messages
102
Reaction score
0
I raised this question in the courseware section and I got only one response. To improve the response, I am repeating the question here. Please see it.

I got one answer and the book at the receprocal of my answer. This is not just for this problem for several problems of this nature the answer given in the book is similarly reciprocal of mine. I want to just reconfirm who is consistently making this mistake.


1. Homework Statement
Rain is falling down vertically. To a man walking on the road, velocity of rain appears to be 1.5 times his velocity. Then to protect himself from rain, he holds his umbrella at an angle (theta) to the vertical such that tan (theta) =


2. Homework Equations

The relative velocity of rain to man is R-M where R is rain velocity and M is man's velocity.


3. The Attempt at a Solution

Assume the rain velocity vector is R. We can think it is -rJ. J is a unit vector along y axis. r is the magnitude of rain velocity. The negative sign comes because of the direction of rain - down.

Similarly M = mI where I is unit vector along x axis. The relative velocity of rain to man is R-M = -rJ-mI.

The magnitude of R-M is 1.5m (given).

1.5m = sqrt(r^2+m^2) implies m/r = 2/sqrt(5) = tan(theta).

But the answer stated in the book is the reciprocal i.e. sqrt(5)/2. Who is right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do not post the same topic twice.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top