Calculating Line Strength to Stop a Salmon

  • Thread starter Thread starter cd80187
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Line Strength
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the minimum strength of a fishing line needed to stop a salmon weighing 76 N, given its initial speed and the distance over which it must stop. The problem involves concepts from kinematics and Newton's laws of motion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss using kinematic equations to find acceleration and apply Newton's second law to determine the force required. There are questions about the relationship between initial speed, distance, and acceleration, as well as the relevance of the fish's weight in the calculations.

Discussion Status

The discussion includes various attempts to clarify the problem and explore different approaches. Some participants have successfully calculated acceleration and force, while others express uncertainty about their results and seek further clarification on the concepts involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of converting units to SI and question the appropriateness of their calculated acceleration values. There is an ongoing exploration of assumptions regarding the forces acting on the fish while it is in motion.

cd80187
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
All right, I am doing my physics homework and I just cannot figure this one out. I have been trying for literally over an hour, so I am running out of ideas. Here it is.

The tension at which a fishing line snaps is commonly called the line's “strength.” What minimum strength is needed for a line that is to stop a salmon of weight 76 N in 13 cm if the fish is initially drifting at 3.1 m/s? Assume a constant deceleration.

All right, so clearly this has to do with force, which is going to end up being the mass of the fish times its decleration. But because they are asking for strength, I am guessing it a magnitude and not a vector. So, I have tried things such as using the velocity over the meters taken to stop the fish, to get time and then apply that to get the acceleration, but that was clearly wrong as the time changes due to the deceleration. I have done all kinds of things, I need help to figure this one out. Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Use your knowledge of kinematics to find the acceleration. (You are given the initial speed and the distance--that's all you need.) Then use Newton's 2nd law to find the force needed to produce that acceleration. (What's the mass of the fish?)
 
Thank you so much. I hate those problems that are so simple, yet you overlook. I figured out the answer and it was correct. I used the formula 2a(Change in x) = (final velocity) squared minus (initial velocity) squred. but once again, thank you
 
another question about the fish problem

I was wondering if someone could explain the fish problem in a bit more detail, I can't seem to get it...

Thanks in advance
 
mike_24 said:
I was wondering if someone could explain the fish problem in a bit more detail, I can't seem to get it...

Thanks in advance
Welcome to the Forums Mike,

How would you approach the problem yourself? How much do you know about kinematics?
 
As far as approaching the problem, I am not sure, I was doing a few things with F=ma and replaceing the F with W, but i don't seem to be making a whole lot of progress.
 
mike_24 said:
As far as approaching the problem, I am not sure, I was doing a few things with F=ma and replaceing the F with W, but i don't seem to be making a whole lot of progress.
Okay, do you know any kinematic equations?
 
Umm what would be an example of some?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Yes I do know some kinematics
 
  • #11
I am familiar with all of those yes
 
  • #12
mike_24 said:
Yes I do know some kinematics
Make two list, one with variables you know. The other with variable(s) you wish to find. Which formulae are applicable in your case?
 
  • #13
I don't see how the initial speed and the distance can get you the acceleration though.
 
  • #14
mike_24 said:
I don't see how the initial speed and the distance can get you the acceleration though.
You also know the final velocity.
 
  • #15
For this problem the displacement and velocity equation would be needed i think, and Newtons 2nd law F=ma and maybe W=mg
 
  • #16
Ohhh, it would be zero
 
  • #17
mike_24 said:
Ohhh, it would be zero
Spot on.
mike_24 said:
For this problem the displacement and velocity equation would be needed i think,
Good.
mike_24 said:
and Newtons 2nd law F=ma
Sounds good.
mike_24 said:
and maybe W=mg
You may want to rethink this. What can you say about the net vertical force is a fish is floating (or swimming) at the same depth?
 
  • #18
it would zero if the fish was at the same depth?
 
  • #19
mike_24 said:
it would zero if the fish was at the same depth?
Correct, so you don't need to worry about the weight of the fish. However, you do need the weight to calculate the ...
 
  • #20
the mass of the fish?
 
  • #21
mike_24 said:
the mass of the fish?
Correct. Can you have a go at the question from here?
 
  • #22
Yes, i hope so, but one other question, I rearranged the velocity and displacement equation to solve for acceleration and have calculated the mass of the fish, but i get a really large acceleration, is it because i converted the 13cm to m?, isn't that was is always done?, or am I going wrong somewheres else?
 
  • #23
So, once you re-arrange your equation you should obtain;

a = \frac{v_{f}^2}{2\Delta x}

Yes, you should always convert your units to S.I. units in this type of problem.
 
  • #24
Doing that gives you an acceleration of 36.96m/s^2, just seems like it should be more like 3
 
  • #25
Would 36.96 be the correct acceleration?
 
  • #26
mike_24 said:
Would 36.96 be the correct acceleration?
Yes, that's correct. The units are m/s^2.
 
  • #27
As Doc Al said, your answer is correct. However, I would be interested to know why you think the acceleration should be around 3m.s-2?
 
  • #28
I had no reason to believe it would be around 3, it was just it seemed 36m/s^2 would be too high of a number. Thanks though for all the help with this problem, I appreciate it.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 98 ·
4
Replies
98
Views
7K
Replies
6
Views
5K