Find the distance between the car and the truck- Mechanics

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the distance between a car and a truck during a maneuver involving acceleration and deceleration. The problem is situated within the context of mechanics, specifically focusing on motion and kinematics.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to calculate the distance covered by both the car and the truck, using equations of motion and considering the time taken for the maneuver. Some participants question the assumptions made about constant acceleration and the impact of rounding errors on the final results.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring different interpretations of the problem, with some suggesting alternative approaches, such as working in the truck's rest frame. There is an ongoing examination of the assumptions regarding acceleration and the precision of calculations, but no explicit consensus has been reached.

Contextual Notes

There are discussions about the lack of information regarding the nature of acceleration and deceleration, as well as the implications of rounding during calculations. Participants note that the original poster's final answer may be affected by these factors.

chwala
Gold Member
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
425
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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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,
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
17K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
18K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K