Calculating Time, Where Did I Go Wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NafeesR
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the time it takes for a doll to fall 50 meters from a bridge, with the initial attempt yielding 3.19 seconds, while the textbook states it should be 2.3 seconds. The user initially misapplied the acceleration formula by incorrectly halving the acceleration due to gravity. Clarification was provided that the factor of 1/2 in the equation arises from integration principles. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly applying the kinematic equations in physics problems. Understanding these fundamentals is crucial for accurate calculations in similar scenarios.
NafeesR
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A child accidentally drops her doll from a bridge suspended 50m above a fast moving river. Assuming the doll never reaches terminal velocity, how many seconds will it take for the doll to hit the water?

Homework Equations


x=x0+ v0t + 0.5*at2

The Attempt at a Solution


Using acceleration formula: x=x0+ v0t + 0.5*at2
It should be 0=(50M)+(0m/s)t+0.5*(-9.8m/s2)
Which would give me 3.194382825 seconds. The textbook's answer is 2.3s. So after a bit of exploration I realized that the acceleration isn't supposed to be halved. That brings me to the question why isn't the acceleration halved like the example and other questions using the formula?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
NafeesR said:

Homework Statement


A child accidentally drops her doll from a bridge suspended 50m above a fast moving river. Assuming the doll never reaches terminal velocity, how many seconds will it take for the doll to hit the water?

Homework Equations


x=x0+ v0t + 0.5*at2

The Attempt at a Solution


Using acceleration formula: x=x0+ v0t + 0.5*at2
It should be 0=(50M)+(0m/s)t+0.5*(-9.8m/s2)
Which would give me 3.194382825 seconds. The textbook's answer is 2.3s. So after a bit of exploration I realized that the acceleration isn't supposed to be halved. That brings me to the question why isn't the acceleration halved like the example and other questions using the formula?

Your answer is right (though you made a typo error and forgot a "t" in your equation.)
The factor 1/2 in front of the acceleration comes from integration.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Minimum mass of a block'
Here we know that if block B is going to move up or just be at the verge of moving up ##Mg \sin \theta ## will act downwards and maximum static friction will act downwards ## \mu Mg \cos \theta ## Now what im confused by is how will we know " how quickly" block B reaches its maximum static friction value without any numbers, the suggested solution says that when block A is at its maximum extension, then block B will start to move up but with a certain set of values couldn't block A reach...
Thread 'Calculation of Tensile Forces in Piston-Type Water-Lifting Devices at Elevated Locations'
Figure 1 Overall Structure Diagram Figure 2: Top view of the piston when it is cylindrical A circular opening is created at a height of 5 meters above the water surface. Inside this opening is a sleeve-type piston with a cross-sectional area of 1 square meter. The piston is pulled to the right at a constant speed. The pulling force is(Figure 2): F = ρshg = 1000 × 1 × 5 × 10 = 50,000 N. Figure 3: Modifying the structure to incorporate a fixed internal piston When I modify the piston...
Back
Top