How Long Does It Take a Person to Reach Terminal Velocity?

AI Thread Summary
Estimating the time it takes for a person to reach terminal velocity involves considering factors like body orientation and air resistance. A person falling straight down experiences less drag than one falling flat, significantly affecting terminal velocity, which is estimated to be around 100-120 mph. The approach to terminal velocity is complex and requires modeling using Newton's second law and drag force equations. The constants in the drag force relationship must ensure that the predicted terminal velocity aligns with observed values. Overall, precise calculations depend on various factors, making it challenging to provide definitive answers.
Big-Daddy
Messages
333
Reaction score
1
I want to estimate how long it will take a person (I could specify their dimensions and density :P but maybe just take it as 170 cm tall, 80 kg, etc.) to fall a certain height in the gravitational field of the Earth, not neglecting air resistance.

I'm looking at heights anywhere from say 30 m to 10,000 m although I appreciate at both extremes the model I'm expecting wouldn't be that accurate (presumably g may begin to differ with height once you get to 10,000m changes?).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The terminal velocity will depend very much on how this person falls, how much of his body is exposed to the air resistance. Think of someone falling foot down making a straight vertical line, this person would experience much less air resistance than someone falling face flat towards the ground, sprawled out. The terminal velocity will depend on this orientation (as well as other factors like the clothes this person is wearing, etc.) So, it's hard to give you any concrete answers. But I have heard that roughly the terminal velocity of a human in a flat position is ~100mph, but don't quote me on this.
 
Matterwave said:
The terminal velocity will depend very much on how this person falls, how much of his body is exposed to the air resistance. Think of someone falling foot down making a straight vertical line, this person would experience much less air resistance than someone falling face flat towards the ground, sprawled out. The terminal velocity will depend on this orientation (as well as other factors like the clothes this person is wearing, etc.) So, it's hard to give you any concrete answers. But I have heard that roughly the terminal velocity of a human in a flat position is ~100mph, but don't quote me on this.

I did some digging around and came up with an estimate of around 120 mph for a human "in random positions". How about we assume this for terminal velocity?

Clearly once the human is "at" or "very near" terminal velocity, we can model speed/distance/time very easily by taking the speed as nearly constant. But it's not nearly so obvious how the approach to terminal velocity can be modeled in terms of time and distance (or for that matter speed)?
 
You need to formulate Newton's second law for the falling object, and you need a relationship for the drag force acting on the object as a function of the velocity. The constants in the relationship for the drag force must be such that, if you set the acceleration equal to zero, you predict a velocity of 100-120 mph. You can then solve the resulting differential equation for the velocity as a function of time, starting with zero velocity downward at time zero.

Chet
 
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...
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