Constant velocity or at constant acceleration

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Humans are more likely to walk at a constant velocity than at a constant acceleration due to the inherent limitations in maintaining precise speed over time. Achieving true constant velocity requires 100% accuracy, which is impractical for human movement. While constant acceleration may be possible for brief moments, it is unsustainable over longer distances. Analyzing velocity over several strides reveals that maintaining a consistent speed is more feasible than continuous acceleration.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts such as velocity and acceleration
  • Familiarity with human biomechanics and movement patterns
  • Knowledge of measurement techniques for speed and distance
  • Ability to analyze motion over time and distance
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of kinematics in physics
  • Explore human biomechanics related to walking and running
  • Study the effects of fatigue on human performance in sports
  • Learn about motion analysis tools and techniques for measuring velocity
USEFUL FOR

This discussion benefits students of physics, sports scientists, biomechanics researchers, and anyone interested in understanding human movement dynamics.

dg_5021
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Are we more likely to be able to walk at constant velocity or at constant acceleration?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dg_5021 said:
Are we more likely to be able to walk at constant velocity or at constant acceleration?

Walking with a constant velocity would be very difficult over a period of even a few seconds. You have to take into account that a truely constant velocity would require 100% accuracy. That is, with no rounding of time. There's a difference between walking 1 m/s and walking 1.000324 m/s, and this isn't true constant velocity. I don't think humans have the accuracy needed to walk at a constant velocity.

z-component
 
Like wise constant acceleration would be impossible to maintain for any but very short periods of time. If you consider your velocity over significantly large distances you will probably find that constant velocity is a more reasonable answer.

On a small scale, like a singe stride of course your velocity is constantly changing, but so is your acceleration, so you cannot call it constant anything on that scale. If you look at anything over 2 or 3 strides a constant velocity is much more likely then a constant acceleration. Even when you are running you only accelerate for the first few strides.

I am sure someone will claim me incorrect because of some Olympic sprinter, just broaden your definition of "a few"!
 
well it would be impossible to accelarate constantly since we would have limits on how fast we can go, so it would sort of look like a square root graph, and we could only maintain a high speed for so long before we would get tired. however if you look at it this way, you measure the distance traveled, say 1 Km, and it took you one hour to get there, you would then be traveling at one km per hour, then you would pick random points, many of them, and measure your velocity at that point, and if it's 1km/hour most of the time then you are maintainting a constant velocity.

on a diffrent note, say you are counting half notes, and every half note you put one foot infront of the other, this would come very close to getting you a constant velocity, either way its' more pheasable to keep going the same speed than to keep accelerating at the same rate.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
583
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K