Calculating Collision Time for Two Objects with Different Initial Velocities

  • Thread starter Thread starter Speedking96
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kinematics
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the collision time of two balls thrown upwards with different initial velocities: 15.0 m/s for the first ball and 12.0 m/s for the second ball, which is thrown 1.15 seconds later. The correct approach involves setting their heights equal using the kinematic equation for uniformly accelerated motion. The initial attempt yielded an incorrect time of 0.78 seconds due to an error in expanding the term (t-1.15)². The correct calculation confirms that the setup of the equation was appropriate, and the error was isolated to the expansion of the squared term.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of kinematic equations in physics
  • Familiarity with projectile motion concepts
  • Ability to manipulate algebraic expressions
  • Knowledge of gravitational acceleration (approximately -9.81 m/s²)
NEXT STEPS
  • Review kinematic equations for projectile motion
  • Practice solving collision problems in physics
  • Learn about the effects of initial velocity on projectile trajectories
  • Explore error analysis techniques in mathematical problem-solving
USEFUL FOR

Students studying physics, educators teaching kinematics, and anyone interested in understanding projectile motion and collision dynamics.

Speedking96
Messages
104
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Two balls are thrown upwards from the same spot 1.15 seconds apart. The first ball had an initial velocity of 15.0 m/s and the second was 12.0 m/s. At what time do they collide?

2. The attempt at a solution

a = first ball b= second ball

For them to collide, their height must be the same:

da = db
Via x ta + (0.5)(-9.81)(ta^2) = Vib tb + (0.5)(-9.81)(tb)2

(15 m/s) x (t) + (0.5)(-9.81)(t2) = (12 m/s)(t-1.15) + (0.5)(-9.81)(t-1.15)2

When I solve for t, I get 0.78 seconds... I know that this is incorrect. I don't know where I went wrong, it might be in how I set up the equation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nvm, I've figured it out.
 
setup looks good. I would suspect a mistake in expanding the (t-1.15)² .
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K