Max Height of Rocket in Free Fall: Solving for a, t1, and g

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the maximum height of a rocket that accelerates upward with a constant net acceleration until its fuel is exhausted. The correct formula for maximum height is derived as H = (1/2)at1^2, where 'a' is the net acceleration. A participant attempted to use a net acceleration of 3g and a time of 5 seconds but encountered an incorrect result. Clarification was provided that 'net acceleration' should not be adjusted, and the calculated height using the correct values yielded approximately 367.9 meters, suggesting a possible rounding issue. The conversation emphasizes the importance of accurately applying the formula and understanding the concept of net acceleration.
reesejm
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I was given the situation, A rocket, initially at rest on the ground, accelerates straight upward from rest with constant net acceleration a , until time t1, when the fuel is exhausted.

Find the maximum height H that the rocket reaches (neglecting air resistance).
Express the maximum height in terms of a, t1, and/or g . Note that in this problem, g is a positive number equal to the magnitude of the acceleration due to gravity.

I found the equation to be (1/2)a((t_1)^2)*(1+(a/g)) This formulaa is correct. I am having trouble finding the max. height that the rocket will reach. height when the net acceleration is a=3g for t1=5.00s and use g=9.81m/s^2. I tried plugging in a=3g into the equation and got and incorrect answer so i tried 2g, taking g away from the aceleration becuase of gravity downword and as well got it wrong. I am not sure what i am doing wrong
 
Physics news on Phys.org
reesejm said:
I was given the situation, A rocket, initially at rest on the ground, accelerates straight upward from rest with constant net acceleration a , until time t1, when the fuel is exhausted.

Find the maximum height H that the rocket reaches (neglecting air resistance).

Hmm, you appear not to understand what 'net acceleration' means. The 'net acceleration' is the total acceleration you don't need to manipulate it any. Ergo, the height the rocket reaches is going to be:
\frac{1}{2}at_1^2
 
with a=3g, i plugged the numbers into \frac{1}{2}at_1^2 and got 367.9m. It said that i was off by a single numerical factor
 
Well, unless you give the numbers, I can't check your math. You might want to check if it's looking for 368 m (because 9.81 has only 3 sig figs...)
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top