Can a Magnet Make Objects Fall Faster than Terminal Velocity?

AI Thread Summary
A magnet attracted to the ground could potentially fall faster than its terminal velocity, depending on the definition of terminal velocity used. If terminal velocity is defined as the speed at which drag equals the object's weight, the magnet could exceed this speed. However, if terminal velocity is defined as the point where air drag results in zero net force, then it cannot fall faster than this limit. The discussion highlights the importance of definitions in understanding the physics of falling objects. Ultimately, the context of terminal velocity is crucial in determining the fall speed of a magnet.
Sheshonk
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
So, someone said the random quote "We dropped him faster than a magnet".

So my question is, if this proposed magnet were attracted to the ground, could it go faster than terminal velocity? Or is terminal velocity the fastest something can fall?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It depends on how you define terminal velocity. If you defined terminal velocity to be how fast an object is falling when drag is equal to the object's weight, then yes, the magnet will fall faster than its terminal velocity. If you define it to be the point at which air drag causes the net force on an object to be zero, then no, terminal velocity is, by definition, as fast as an object can fall.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

Falling question about terminal velocity
Replies
3
Views
2K
Why Do Objects Only Reach 95% of Their Terminal Velocity?
Replies
7
Views
5K
Penetration of falling object into sediment (after water)
Replies
8
Views
2K
Hyperbolic tangent function for terminal velocity with Vo>Vt
Replies
3
Views
3K
Terminal Velocity: Student Investigation & Incorrect Book Answer
Replies
9
Views
2K
Terminal Velocity of a Cylinder Freefalling Through a Fluid
Replies
6
Views
10K
Terminal Velocity: The Energy Exchange with Surroundings
Replies
5
Views
5K
Terminal velocity of an object falling through a liquid
Replies
7
Views
9K
Gravity, friction and tangential velocity
Replies
11
Views
2K
Velocity change under drag and other forces: small mass, large delta-t
Replies
3
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top