Find the distance between the car and the truck- Mechanics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the distance between a car and a truck during an overtaking maneuver. The car's acceleration and the distances covered by both vehicles are analyzed, leading to a calculated gap of 51.1 meters. However, inaccuracies arise from premature rounding and assumptions about constant acceleration. It is emphasized that maintaining high precision in calculations is crucial for accurate results. The final arithmetic correction indicates the actual gap is 50.9 meters, highlighting the importance of careful computation in physics problems.
chwala
Gold Member
Messages
2,825
Reaction score
413
Homework Statement
See attached
Relevant Equations
##s=vt##
Find the problem and the solution below;

1639616112853.png
Find my approach to the problem.
Considering the motion of the car;
##v=u+at##
##33.333= 26.6667+30a##
##a=0.2222##
Therefore it follows that,
##s##=## ut##+##\frac {1}{2}####at^2##
##s##=##(26.67 ×30 +(0.5×0.222×30^2)##
##s=900##metres

The distance that car has to cover in order to overtake the truck is given by
##s= 35+10+4=49##metres

Therefore we shall have, ##900-49= 851## metres

Now considering the distance covered by the truck in ##30## seconds, we shall have
##s=vt##
##s=26.67×30=800.1##metres

Therefore the gap between the car and the truck will be ##851-800.1=51.1##metres.

Any other approach highly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
Physics news on Phys.org
This is an interesting problem. I would have bet that the rates of acceleration and deceleration would change the answer, even given the restriction that the entire maneuver took half a minute. But I see from their solution that it does not because the horizontal position of point M does not change the area of the triangle AMB.
 
  • Like
Likes chwala and hmmm27
It would simplify the arithmetic slightly to work in the rest frame of the truck i.e. subtract ##96 \mathrm{kph}## from all of the velocities.
 
@chwala, a couple of points.

First, you assume that the acceleration is constant over the half minute (and the deceleration instantaneous). You are not told that. As FactChecker pointed out, it turns out that the rates of acceleration and deceleration don't make a difference, but it's not obvious that you knew that and it's not clear from your working (and it was not obvious to me or FactChecker either). The geometric method, on the other hand, makes it clear.

Second, you once again unnecessarily convert to m/s. your final answer of 51.1 m is slightly erroneous, not because of a mistake in the conversion, but because of premature rounding off. You say
s = 26.67*30 = 800.1 m
Actually it is 26.666666... * 30 = 800 m
The rule is always work to high precision and round off your final answer to the correct number of sig figs at the end. (If you are asked to report an intermediate result, report it to the correct sig figs, but still use the more precise value for subsequent calculations.)

This is regularly going to be an issue when you convert (e.g.) round numbers in km/min or km/h to m/s, because of the factor of 60 or 3600.

Edit: There is also a basic arithmetic error: 851 - 800.1 = 50.9, not 51.1. But still an error due to rounding off.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker and chwala
mjc123 said:
@chwala, a couple of points.

First, you assume that the acceleration is constant over the half minute (and the deceleration instantaneous). You are not told that. As FactChecker pointed out, it turns out that the rates of acceleration and deceleration don't make a difference, but it's not obvious that you knew that and it's not clear from your working (and it was not obvious to me or FactChecker either). The geometric method, on the other hand, makes it clear.

Second, you once again unnecessarily convert to m/s. your final answer of 51.1 m is slightly erroneous, not because of a mistake in the conversion, but because of premature rounding off. You say
s = 26.67*30 = 800.1 m
Actually it is 26.666666... * 30 = 800 m
The rule is always work to high precision and round off your final answer to the correct number of sig figs at the end. (If you are asked to report an intermediate result, report it to the correct sig figs, but still use the more precise value for subsequent calculations.)

This is regularly going to be an issue when you convert (e.g.) round numbers in km/min or km/h to m/s, because of the factor of 60 or 3600.

Edit: There is also a basic arithmetic error: 851 - 800.1 = 50.9, not 51.1. But still an error due to rounding off.
Second, you once again unnecessarily convert to m/s. your final answer of 51.1 m is slightly erroneous, not because of a mistake in the conversion, but because of premature rounding off. You say
s = 26.67*30 = 800.1 m
Actually it is 26.666666... * 30 = 800 m
The rule is always work to high precision and round off your final answer to the correct number of sig figs at the end. (If you are asked to report an intermediate result, report it to the correct sig figs, but still use the more precise value for subsequent calculations.)

Noted with Regards,
 
Back
Top