Diving into water: avg F of water

  • Thread starter Thread starter rasputin66
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Water
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a diver jumping from a height into water and aims to determine the average force exerted by the water on the diver. The context includes concepts from mechanics, specifically energy conservation and forces acting during the diver's motion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the relationship between kinetic energy and the forces exerted by the water, questioning whether energy conservation principles apply. There are attempts to calculate kinetic energy and average force, with some participants expressing confusion over their results and the equations involved.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various interpretations of energy conservation being explored. Some participants have offered guidance on using potential and kinetic energy equations, while others are questioning their understanding of these concepts. There is no explicit consensus on the correct approach yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the implications of nonconservative forces and the need to account for energy losses during the diver's descent and subsequent motion in the water. There is also mention of specific numerical values and options that may not align with the calculations being discussed.

rasputin66
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
A 53.0-kg person jumps from rest off a 12.0-m-high tower straight down into the water. Neglect air resistance. She comes to rest 3.00 m under the surface of the water. Determine the magnitude of the average force that the water exerts on the diver. This force is nonconservative.
A. 2100 N B. 7800 N C. 6200 N D. 520 N E. 2600 N

height=12 m
depth= 3m
mass= 53kg

Wgrav= mg (delta h)
= 5194 N (should I put h or h+d? I'm using h+d)
=7791 J

Actually, I am pretty lost and could use a little guidance. Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The kinetic energy when the diver hits the water is equal to the kinetic energy the water exerts, right? Because of cons of E? So if I can find the diver's E when she has gone 12 m, I will know the avg F?
 
OK, she hits water level at 117.6 m/s.
KE = 0.5 x 53 x (117.6^2) = 366488.64

delta KE = Fd
366488.64 = Fx3
366488.64/3=F
122162.9 =F
?

That is not an option but it seem right to me. :(
 
Last edited:
I do not believe you need to introduce velocity into your thought process.
U_1+K_1=U_2+K_2+J
where J is the amount lost due to your nonconservative forces (a positive quantity). Take point 1 to be the moment before she jumps and point 2 to be her resting position underwater. At points 1 and 2, she is not moving.
U_1=U_2+J
We define the coordinates such that her resting position is at zero height.
U_1=J
where U_1 is the gravitational potential energy computed using a coordinate whose origin is her resting position with the positive h-axis being a straight shot from point 1 to point 2. Can you take it from here? Use the definition of energy given a force and displacement.
 
Last edited:
I've never seen that equation before and I don't understand what it is. Why doesn't my solution work? I found KE? Is that equation the only way to find the solution?
 
rasputin66 said:
I've never seen that equation before and I don't understand what it is. Why doesn't my solution work? I found KE? Is that equation the only way to find the solution?

You've never seen the conservation of energy equation and you're learning about energy?! Let's start off with
U_1+K_1=U_2+K_2
This holds for any particle's energy if it isn't losing energy somehow (friction, water absorbing energy, etc.) It states that the gravitational potential energy and the kinetic energy at one point must equal the same at another point. These points are denoted "1" and "2". We can substitute the actual ways to compute these quantities, which I'm sure you've seen already:
mgh_1 +\frac{1}{2}mv_1^2=mgh_2 +\frac{1}{2}mv_2^2
We can think about this as saying an object slows down as it rolls up a hill (h_2 > h_1 means v_2 < v_1 or else the quantities will not equal) or an object is speeding up while rolling down a hill, etc.Ok, so the next leap is if you have energy losses like in real life. Every time a ball bounces, the floor absorbs some energy and it keeps reaching lower and lower highs. When you roll a ball on a floor, it will come to rest even on a level field, etc. What we say then is the initial kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy at point 1 is equal to that of point 2 plus the losses. Think about
mgh_1 +\frac{1}{2}mv_1^2=mgh_2 +\frac{1}{2}mv_2^2
If an object is losing energy as it goes from point 1 to point 2, side 2 will actually be less than side 1. They are no longer equal:
mgh_1 +\frac{1}{2}mv_1^2&gt;mgh_2 +\frac{1}{2}mv_2^2
So we reinstate the equality by adding some positive number that I called J, which represents all the lost energy during the movement from 1 to 2:
mgh_1 +\frac{1}{2}mv_1^2=mgh_2 +\frac{1}{2}mv_2^2 + J

The water is, in your problem, solely responsible for any imbalance in the equation. So to find how much work the water force did, find J. Then use J to find that force in the equation for work given a force and displacement.

As for your question about kinetic energy, the reason you cannot use it solely is it ignores the fact that you are still losing potential energy as you go from 12meters in your fall to 15 meters. So your answer will be incorrect slightly (and that incorrect answer is one of the choices, by the way). So even if you find the kinetic energy right at 12 meters, you will still need to invoke the use of these equations to find conservation of energy. Things will only be messier 1.) since your kinetic energies are not zero for point 1 (since you will take point 1 to be right above the water) and and 2.) since you had to do some kinematics to find the velocity above the water (or some extra energy computation). It is worth noting, too, that she is not traveling at 117.6m/s at impact.
 
Last edited:
I can't read any of your equations. Anyway, I realized that I calculated v incorrectly. How did I get that number? I have no idea. v = 15.33 and now that I plug that into my work, my solution is correct. Still have no idea what you're talking about but this way works. Behold my works ye mighty!
 
rasputin66 said:
I can't read any of your equations. Anyway, I realized that I calculated v incorrectly. How did I get that number? I have no idea. v = 15.33 and now that I plug that into my work, my solution is correct. Still have no idea what you're talking about but this way works. Behold my works ye mighty!

Your answer is not correct. You are ignoring the extra energy gained as she goes from 12 meters to 15 meters.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
9K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
15K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K