A falling stone takes 0.28 s to travel past a window 2.2 m...

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a falling stone that takes 0.28 seconds to travel past a window that is 2.2 meters tall. Participants are exploring the kinematic equations to determine the height from which the stone fell.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to identify initial conditions and variables, suggesting an initial velocity of zero. They explore the kinematic equations to find the height of the fall.
  • Some participants question the assumptions regarding the signs of the variables, particularly the final position of the stone.
  • Others suggest re-evaluating the calculations for initial velocity and checking the signs used in the equations.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively discussing the approach to the problem, with some providing guidance on checking calculations and signs. There is a recognition of the need for careful re-evaluation of the original poster's method without reaching a consensus on the solution.

Contextual Notes

There is an indication that the original poster may be confused about the setup of the problem and the correct application of the kinematic equations. The discussion highlights the importance of sign conventions in the context of motion under gravity.

teatime95
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A falling stone takes 0.28 s to travel past a window 2.2 m tall.
From what height above the top of the window did the stone fall?
So from this problem I think I have these variables:
vo = ? (or 0 because falling usually indicates 0 for an initial velocity?)
yo = 0
y = 2.2m
t = 0.28s
a = -9.8m/s^2

Homework Equations


Kinematic equations:

y=yo+vo*t + 1/2*a*t^2
v^2 = v^20 + 2a(y-y0)

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
I originally tried to use the first equation above, and solve for vo if I assumed it was not equal to zero.
So I isolated vo and got,
vo = -2.2 + 1/2(-9.8m/s^2)(0.28s)^2 / -0.28s
vo = 9.229m/s

After which I tried to substitute that value in my second equation which also didn't give me the correct answer for height (which i think is the new yo)
My textbook gives me the final answer but not the steps that it reached to get to it.

I have included the final answer here in white ink (so highlight to read) In case anyone wants to check their work or work backwards: 2.1m

I feel like my process and identifying my variables given correctly is wrong and I'm at that point where I am confusing myself repeating this question.
Guidance would greatly be appreciated,
Thank you all!
Newbie in Physics
 
Physics news on Phys.org
teatime95 said:
I originally tried to use the first equation above, and solve for vo if I assumed it was not equal to zero.
So I isolated vo and got,
vo = -2.2 + 1/2(-9.8m/s^2)(0.28s)^2 / -0.28s
That's an OK method. But redo it more carefully.

teatime95 said:
yo = 0
y = 2.2m
Since the stone is falling, that final value of y must be negative.
 
Doc Al said:
That's an OK method. But redo it more carefully.

Is my math wrong here^ am I isolating for the correct variable?

Since the stone is falling, that final value of y must be negative.

If I change 2.2 to -ve I still get the same number -9.229, and I am still unsure what I do after?
 
teatime95 said:
If I change 2.2 to -ve I still get the same number -9.229, and I am still unsure what I do after?
I get a different value for v0.

Show what you've put into this equation:
teatime95 said:
y=yo+vo*t + 1/2*a*t^2
Don't isolate v0 yet, just show what you have for the values in that equation.
 
Check your signs.
If downward is negative then both V0 and g have negative signs, they both end up with negative signs in your final equation for V0.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
26K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
3K