Constant velocity or at constant acceleration

AI Thread Summary
Walking at a constant velocity is challenging due to the need for precise timing and accuracy, making true constant velocity nearly impossible for humans. Over short distances, both velocity and acceleration fluctuate, but maintaining a constant velocity becomes more feasible over longer distances. Constant acceleration is also difficult to sustain, as physical limits and fatigue restrict speed over time. While some may argue about elite athletes, the general consensus is that achieving constant velocity is more realistic than constant acceleration. Ultimately, maintaining a steady speed is more practical than continuously accelerating.
dg_5021
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Are we more likely to be able to walk at constant velocity or at constant acceleration?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dg_5021 said:
Are we more likely to be able to walk at constant velocity or at constant acceleration?

Walking with a constant velocity would be very difficult over a period of even a few seconds. You have to take into account that a truely constant velocity would require 100% accuracy. That is, with no rounding of time. There's a difference between walking 1 m/s and walking 1.000324 m/s, and this isn't true constant velocity. I don't think humans have the accuracy needed to walk at a constant velocity.

z-component
 
Like wise constant acceleration would be impossible to maintain for any but very short periods of time. If you consider your velocity over significantly large distances you will probably find that constant velocity is a more reasonable answer.

On a small scale, like a singe stride of course your velocity is constantly changing, but so is your acceleration, so you cannot call it constant anything on that scale. If you look at anything over 2 or 3 strides a constant velocity is much more likely then a constant acceleration. Even when you are running you only accelerate for the first few strides.

I am sure someone will claim me incorrect because of some Olympic sprinter, just broaden your definition of "a few"!
 
well it would be impossible to accelarate constantly since we would have limits on how fast we can go, so it would sort of look like a square root graph, and we could only maintain a high speed for so long before we would get tired. however if you look at it this way, you measure the distance traveled, say 1 Km, and it took you one hour to get there, you would then be traveling at one km per hour, then you would pick random points, many of them, and measure your velocity at that point, and if it's 1km/hour most of the time then you are maintainting a constant velocity.

on a diffrent note, say you are counting half notes, and every half note you put one foot infront of the other, this would come very close to getting you a constant velocity, either way its' more pheasable to keep going the same speed than to keep accelerating at the same rate.
 
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top