Do you jump higher when you run and jump, or just stand and jump?

  • Thread starter Thread starter romsofia
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Jump
AI Thread Summary
Jumping higher is generally achieved by running and jumping rather than just standing and jumping. The horizontal momentum gained from running helps in clearing obstacles, but converting that horizontal kinetic energy into vertical lift is complex. While a slow run can suffice for sideways approaches, a head-on approach requires greater speed to match height. The body primarily uses legs as inelastic vaulting poles, with some ability to convert horizontal kinetic energy into vertical motion. Ultimately, with proper technique, even one-foot takeoffs with horizontal speed can surpass standing jumps.
romsofia
Gold Member
Messages
599
Reaction score
330
Hi, do you jump higher when you run and jump, or just stand and jump?

I believe you jump higher if you run and jump.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Run and jump would be higher. The highest would be a gymnastic type flip flop move into a high back dive or flip. Two foot take offs are not allowed in high jump contests though.
 
Hi romsofia! :smile:
romsofia said:
Hi, do you jump higher when you run and jump, or just stand and jump?

I believe you jump higher if you run and jump.

I think the running part is primarily because you need to move your centre of mass horizontally far enough to clear your body of the bar.

If you approach almost sideways, you can get away with a very slow run, since you only have to move a distance slightly greater than the width of your shoulders or hips.

But if you approach almost head-on, you need to run much faster, since you have to move a distance comparable with your height.

Since the human body has no way of converting KE to elastic PE (and since neither shoes nor the ground can store much elastic PE), it is almost impossible to convert the extra "horizontal KE" from running into elastic PE and then back again to "vertical KE" … so extra horizontal speed doesn't help produce extra vertical motion.
 
tiny-tim said:
Since the human body has no way of converting KE to elastic PE (and since neither shoes nor the ground can store much elastic PE), it is almost impossible to convert the extra "horizontal KE" from running into elastic PE and then back again to "vertical KE" … so extra horizontal speed doesn't help produce extra vertical motion.
A better analogy would be that a person uses his leg or legs as mostly inelastic vaulting poles. In the case of the gymnastic move I mentioned angular KE is used in addition to linear KE.
 
rcgldr said:
A better analogy would be that a person uses his leg or legs as mostly inelastic vaulting poles. In the case of the gymnastic move I mentioned angular KE is used in addition to linear KE.
I agree, it is possible to convert some of the horizontal kinetic energy into vertical kinetic energy by placing the leg (or two legs) at an angle (lower than 90 degrees) to the ground, absorbing the radial kinetic energy and keeping tangential kinetic energy (which has a positive vertical component). The principle is similar to a pole vault (leg working as a pole), which can work even with a pole that only absorbs radial kinetic energy, without returning it elasticly - of course the effect is weaker than in case of the elasic pole.

Also I am certain that when jumping with with two foot take off+horizontal speed anyone can jump higher than with two foot take off from rest. With the right technique even one foot take off with horizontal speed might be higher than two foot take off from rest.
 
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top