Calculating Line Strength to Stop a Salmon

  • Thread starter Thread starter cd80187
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Line Strength
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
27 replies · 9K views
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?
 
Yes I do know some kinematics
 
I am familiar with all of those yes
 
I don't see how the initial speed and the distance can get you the acceleration though.
 
For this problem the displacement and velocity equation would be needed i think, and Newtons 2nd law F=ma and maybe W=mg
 
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?
 
it would zero if the fish was at the same depth?
 
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 ...
 
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?
 
Doing that gives you an acceleration of 36.96m/s^2, just seems like it should be more like 3
 
Would 36.96 be the correct acceleration?
 
mike_24 said:
Would 36.96 be the correct acceleration?
Yes, that's correct. The units are m/s^2.
 
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.