Can you combine two accelerations together?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Zynoakib
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the misunderstanding of combining vertical acceleration with gravitational acceleration in projectile motion. The user calculated a vertical acceleration of 23.96 m/s² for a rocket but incorrectly subtracted gravitational acceleration (9.8 m/s²) from it. The correct approach is to use the vertical acceleration as given, since it represents the actual acceleration of the rocket, which already accounts for gravitational effects. Clarification was provided that tangential and radial accelerations can be combined, but this principle does not apply to the scenario presented.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of projectile motion principles
  • Knowledge of acceleration types: vertical and gravitational
  • Familiarity with Newton's laws of motion
  • Basic physics of rockets and thrust
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of projectile motion in depth
  • Learn about the effects of thrust and gravity on rocket motion
  • Explore the concept of resultant acceleration in different contexts
  • Review Newton's laws of motion and their applications in real-world scenarios
USEFUL FOR

Students studying physics, educators teaching projectile motion, and anyone interested in understanding the dynamics of rocket motion and acceleration interactions.

Zynoakib
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
When I was doing an exercise on projectile motion, there was a question that asked something like the max. altitude reached by an accelerating rocket. After some calculations, I got 23.96ms-2 as the vertical acceleration, then I minus it with 9.8ms-2 (gravitational acceleration as the two accelerations, I thought, should work against each other). Turns out, this is wrong and I should calculate the rest with 23.96ms-2 as the vertical acceleration. So my question is, why am I not supposed to minus 23.96 with 9.8? Because you can combine tangential acceleration and radial acceleration together to give a "resultant acceleration", but why is it not my case?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you'll have to post the original question to get a clear reply. All that comes to mind is that gravity had already, in some way, been accounted for.
 
Question 65
20150717_205325.jpg
 
As Puma suggested, the acceleration given in the problem is the actual acceleration of the rocket, not the thrust of the engine.
 
Thank you guys!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
970
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
6K