Calculate Acceleration of Falling Hammer on Moon | 1-D Kinematics Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter RubenL
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kinematics
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the acceleration of a hammer dropped on the Moon, which falls 6.0 meters in 2.7 seconds. The correct acceleration is determined to be 1.62 m/s² using the kinematics equation x = x₀ + v₀t + (1/2)at². Participants clarify the origin of the 1/2 in the equation, explaining it arises from the integration of velocity over time, specifically when deriving the equation from calculus principles. Understanding this derivation is essential for grasping the underlying physics of motion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of 1-D kinematics equations
  • Basic knowledge of calculus and integration
  • Familiarity with the concept of acceleration
  • Ability to solve algebraic equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of kinematic equations using calculus
  • Learn about the effects of gravity on different celestial bodies
  • Explore the concept of free fall and terminal velocity
  • Investigate the relationship between acceleration, velocity, and displacement
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the principles of motion and acceleration in a gravitational context, particularly in relation to celestial mechanics.

RubenL
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



An astronaut standing on a platform on the Moon
drops a hammer. If the hammer falls 6.0 meters vertically in 2.7 seconds, what is its acceleration?

Homework Equations



x=x0+v0t+(1/2)at2

The Attempt at a Solution



x=x0+v0t+(1/2)at2
6=0+.5(a)(2.72)
6=3.7a
a=1.62m/s2

This is a very simple question and easily solvable...however my question is...considering this kinematics equation x=x0+v0t+(1/2)at2.
I can understand how all of the variables play within this equation, but i do not understand where the 1/2 comes from (i understand it has to be this way, however), what is the purpose of halving you answer?

(this is wrong, but) why can't the equation be solved like so;

X=6m
Vi=0m/s
t=2.7s
a=?m/s2

6m / 2.7s = 2.2m/s
2.2m/s / 2.7s = .81m/s2

and leave it like so? (like i said i know this is wrong, but i am just trying to figure out why the 1/2 is in the equation)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Im not very good at typing in the formulas. But the 1/2 comes from the derivation of the expression you are using, and the properties of calculus.

x=xo+Vot +1/2at2

is derived from v=dx/dt, separate the dx and dt (v*dt=dx) and integrate both sides. You can subsitute v for (vo +at), since you velocity at any time is equal to your initial velocity + your accel*time.

so you now are integrating both sides of dx = (vo +at)dt. When you integrate the second term on the right "a*t", a is constant, so you can pull it out of the integral, then integrate t*dt, which is 1/2*t2. the first term on the right side integrates to vo*t

this whole integral gives you x=vot +1/2at2 +C

When t=0, you find C=xo

so the final expression you are using is x=xo+Vot +1/2at2

hopefully that helps
 
Last edited:
climb515c said:
Im not very good at typing in the formulas. But the 1/2 comes from the derivation of the expression you are using, and the properties of calculus.

x=xo+Vot +1/2at2

is derived from v=dx/dt, separate the dx and dt (v*dt=dx) and integrate both sides. You can subsitute v for (vo +at), since you velocity at any time is equal to your initial velocity + your accel*time.

so you now are integrating both sides of dx = (vo +at)dt. When you integrate the second term on the right "a*t", a is constant, so you can pull it out of the integral, then integrate t*dt, which is 1/2*t2. the first term on the right side integrates to vo*t

this whole integral gives you x=vot +1/2at2 +C

When t=0, you find C=xo

so the final expression you are using is x=xo+Vot +1/2at2

hopefully that helps

Great! This helps put reason to it. I see i need to get my head into calculus to fully understand. But its clear to me now that there is a mathematical reason behind it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
13K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K