Confusing Kinematics and Acceleration

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving kinematics and gravitational acceleration. A rock is dropped from a cliff, taking 4.15 seconds to reach the ground, and then thrown upwards to a height of 2 meters before falling back down. Participants attempt to derive the gravitational acceleration using the equations of motion but struggle due to missing variables, particularly the initial velocity and time for the second part of the problem. The conversation highlights the complexity of solving kinematic equations without complete information. Ultimately, the problem remains unsolved due to insufficient data provided for the second scenario.
Teog
Hello everyone. I've been at this for an hour now, so I think it's about time I asked for help.

We have a person on the surface of a planet with an unknown gravitational acceleration. The only measuring instrument available is a very accurate watch.

The person is on top of a cliff, and drops a rock from the top of it. It takes 4.15s for the rock to fall from the top of the cliff to the ground below. It travels X meters in total.

Afterwards, the person takes the rock, and throws it so that it travels up 2 meters above the top of the cliff, then it falls down to the ground. It travels (4 + X) meters in total Here is a simple depiction:
Case 1)
||
||
||
\/

Case 2:
//\\
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
||
||
||
\/

This shouldn't be that hard, but I'm still not getting it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
OK
In the first case, when the person drops the rock, the distance from the cliff to the bottom is:
d=a*(((4.15)^2)/2)
In the second case, when the person launchs the rock upwards, we can put:
2+d=(a*(t^2))/2------>d=a*(t^2)/2-2
Equalling the 2 d, you eliminate a and get t, that is the time that the rock lapses in the second launch from the upper part of its trajectory to reach the ground
The solution of the rest of the problem is straightforward
 
Sorry, but i really don't understand your response. I understand that for the first part, where the rock drops, we can use 0.5(a)(t^2), but for the second part, you used the same equation displayed in a different form (with +2m on one side and -2m on the other). I'm really at a loss on this question.
 
The general equation you need is

s = .5at2 + v0t+x0

Where v0 is the initial velocity and
x0 is the initial position.
s is the position of the rock at t seconds.

Now we need to identify the parameters. For the first part the rock is dropped so its initial velocity is 0 (v0=0) and the initial postion = X (x0=X)
we need the time when s=0
So set up the first equation using these parameters.

0= .5at2+X

so solve for a

a = -2X/t2

Now the second part cam be set up several different ways.
Since the rock is thrown up it is given some initial velocity v0, which we are not given, we only have the distance traveled.

we have.
2=.5aT2+ v0T
where T would be the time required to reach the top of motion of the rock, we do not have T, nor v0 so this does not help us.

We could write
0 = .5aΤ2+v0Τ + X

Where Τ is the time required to reach the ground after being thrown up. Again we do not have Τ or v0. Once again we are stuck.
Or We could write

0= .5aτ2+X+2,
this equation results from the fact that the rock has zero velocity 2m above the edge of the cliff and falls to the ground. Here we would need τ, the time for the rock to fall from its peak of travel to the foot of the cliff, once again we do not have this information.

We have only information on how far the rock travels, we do not have an initial velocity, or a time of travel. Without these bits of information the problem cannot be solved.
Did you simply forget to include a time for part 2 or was it not given?
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top