Calculating Impact Speed: 100 Meter Fall with and without Air Resistance

  • Thread starter Thread starter honeydukes
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the impact speed of a body falling from 100 meters with air resistance, a drag term must be added to the force balance equation, typically using quadratic drag proportional to the square of the velocity. The drag force can be approximated using the formula f = -cv^2, where c is derived from the drag coefficient, cross-sectional area, and air density. A person weighing 68 kg and falling in a "pencil" position experiences minimal air resistance, estimated at around 10 N, resulting in an acceleration of approximately 9.6 m/s². This leads to a maximum impact speed of about 44.0 m/s, slightly lower than the 44.3 m/s calculated without air resistance. For a "spread eagle" position, the maximum speed is estimated to be no less than 40 m/s, indicating the significant effect of body position on fall dynamics.
honeydukes
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello!

I am doing a project with a few other people. It is sort of a mock trial. None of us are physics wiz's. We need to know the speed a body would impact the ground from a fall of 100 meters. We figured out that it would be 99 miles per hour/44 meters per second WITHOUT air resistance. But we need to know what it would be WITH air resistance. The person is about 5'10 and weighs about 150lbs/68kg. Your help would be much appreciated! Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
honeydukes said:
Hello!

I am doing a project with a few other people. It is sort of a mock trial. None of us are physics wiz's. We need to know the speed a body would impact the ground from a fall of 100 meters. We figured out that it would be 99 miles per hour/44 meters per second WITHOUT air resistance. But we need to know what it would be WITH air resistance. The person is about 5'10 and weighs about 150lbs/68kg. Your help would be much appreciated! Thanks!

You'll need to add a drag term to your force balance equation. IIRC from my undergraduate mechanics, there can be a viscous drag, which is proportional to the velocity, or a quadratic drag, which is proportional to the square of the velocity. I think that above a few meters per second, the quadratic drag term is used in a typical approximate calculation. So, the drag force should be f = -cv^2. You can approximate the drag coefficient with something like c= \frac{1}{2} C_D S\rho. C_D is a dimensionless term related to the geometry of the falling object, S is the cross-sectional area of the falling obect and \rho is the density of air.
 
As suggested by Geoff's post, the cross-sectional area is important here. This is the surface area that "meets" the oncoming wind and it will be very different for the position that the person takes. In the "pencil" position (straight up and down), a 68 kg person is not going to have experienced much significant air resistance (this is a 4.5 second fall, you know). My estimate has a maximum of 18 N and a minimum of 2 N of air resistance, so let's say 10 N of air resistance. This would make the acceleration atthe bottom about 9.6 m/s^2. The average acceleration would then be 9.7 m/s^2 (this is dirty estimation, please understand) so the maximum speed would be about 44.0 m/s instead of 44.3 m/s.

You'd really need to bring out calculus to do a better estimation if the person falls in a spread eagle position.
 
A quick estimate of a spread eagle fall still gets a maximum speed of no LESS than 40 m/s. This was found by overestimating just about every factor. I haven't worked in fluid dynamics for a while, so if anyone has a smaller maximum speed, I'd like to know what I missed.
 
Last edited:
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top