Calculating the Flowerpot's Fall Height

  • Thread starter Thread starter mmoadi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fall Height
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves calculating the height from which a flowerpot falls, given that it passes a two-meter tall window in a quarter of a second. The context is kinematics, specifically dealing with motion under gravity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss calculating the velocity of the flowerpot as it passes the window and question how this information can be used to find the height of the fall. There is exploration of kinematic equations and the implications of constant versus changing velocity.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, offering different interpretations of the equations to use. Some guidance has been provided regarding the use of initial velocity and the correct application of kinematic equations, but there is no explicit consensus on the final calculations.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of potential confusion due to the wording of the problem, and participants are navigating through assumptions about the initial conditions of the flowerpot's fall.

mmoadi
Messages
149
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A flowerpot falls past two meter tall window in ¼ of a second.

Homework Equations



From what height did the flowerpot fall?

The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is your attempt at the solution?
 
I can calculate the velocity of the pot while this is passing the window.
v = d/t = 2m / (1/4s) = 8 m/s

But how can this help me now?

Do I simply plug the velocity into the formula: h = v^2 / 2g?
 
Last edited:
Well remember, that only applies for constant velocities. You can use your kinematic equations to see what initial velocity an object must have to travel 2m in .25 seconds under a constant acceleration caused by gravity.
 
So the proper formula to use in this case would be:

s = ut + at^2 / 2, where u= 8 m/s and t= 1/4 s?
 
Last edited:
No, the velocity is constantly changing so do not use 8m/s. You know the height of the window and the time it took to go that distance. You can then solve for the initial velocity that the object has when it reaches the window. This question is poorly worded so if you assume the object was simply dropped from a distance above the window, you can determine the distance above the window it was dropped using v^2 = v_0^2 + 2 a \Delta x where v_0 is 0 since we're looking for the distance covered if it was dropped as opposed to thrown downward.
 
Since the initial velocity is 0, do we plug the 8m/s in place of the v squared, so the equation would be (v)squared= ( 0 ) squared + 2(9.8)x and the final answer should be 3.27m, right??
 
Last edited:
No, don't use 8m/s anywhere in this problem. You know that:

\Delta x = v_0t + \frac{at^2}{2}. You know the window is 2m, which is your \Delta x. You know the time and the acceleration, so determine the initial velocity the object has when it reaches the top of the window.

With this in mind, you can then use v^2 = v_0^2 + 2 a \Delta x knowing v_0 is 0 at the moment the object is dropped and you know that the final velocity will be your initial velocity from the previous section. With this, you calculate the \Delta x which is simply the length above the window the object was dropped. Add that to the length of the window and you have your answer.
 
OK, so after plugging the numbers into the given formula, I got the result for
v0= 6.67 m/s.
And putting the v0 for v into the second formula gave me the result x= 2.03 m and adding to this the length of the window, I get the final result which is 4.03 m.
Did I calculate correct this time?
 
  • #10
The velocity when it reaches the window is 6.7m/s, yes. However, I calculated the height above the window being 2.3, not 2.03. Recheck your calculation, sounds like you've about got it.
 
  • #11
Thank for your help! It's all around us and it happens every day, but it is still so confusing when it's put into a real physical problem with numbers and formulas!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
38K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
2K