Find the time taken to travel from top of slope to base - Mechanics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around calculating the time taken for a cyclist to travel from the top of a slope to its base, focusing on the cyclist's acceleration and initial velocity. Participants clarify that the cyclist's acceleration is 2 m/s² at the top of the slope, and there is confusion regarding whether the descent constitutes deceleration. It is emphasized that the cyclist's speed increases while descending, making deceleration an inaccurate term in this context. The initial velocity when descending is noted as 1.5 m/s. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of understanding acceleration and velocity in the context of motion on slopes.
chwala
Gold Member
Messages
2,825
Reaction score
413
Homework Statement
Kindly see attached
Relevant Equations
##s##=##ut##+##\frac {1}{2}####at^2##
Now this is a textbook example with solution.

1639382719970.png


I understand working to solution...my only reservation is on how they used acceleration. The cyclist, i understand was traveling at a constant acceleration of ##2## ##m/s^2## before reaching the top part of the slope.
Now, if he is descending, which outrightly is deceleration or rather retardation, then are we assuming that he is traveling at the same constant rate of acceleration?

ok, i think i get it now...When going down the slope we are now going to have our initial velocity being ##u=1.5####m/s##...
i had to imagine/visualize a cyclist in motion going up a slope then change of direction to negative slope (still in motion)...then it is clear that the initial velocity will be ##1.5##m/s^2##...cheers guys... :smile:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
chwala said:
I understand working to solution...my only reservation is on how they used acceleration. The cyclist, i understand was traveling at a constant acceleration of ##2## ##m/s^2## before reaching the top part of the slope.
That's not how I read it. I interpreted it to mean that the cyclist's acceleration is 2 m/s2 starting at the top. However, this is irrelevant because the position and speed at the top are both known, so it doesn't matter what happened before.

chwala said:
Now, if he is descending, which outrightly is deceleration or rather retardation, then are we assuming that he is traveling at the same constant rate of acceleration?
Why deceleration? The cyclist is going faster going down the hill, which is usually what happens! The speed is to be considered here with respect to the ground, not along two Cartesian coordinates.

chwala said:
ok, i think i get it now...When going down the slope we are now going to have our initial velocity being ##u=1.5####m/s##...
i had to imagine/visualize a cyclist in motion going up a slope then change of direction to negative slope (still in motion)...then it is clear that the initial acceleration will be ##2####m/s^2##...cheers guys... :smile:
See above.
 
DrClaude said:
That's not how I read it. I interpreted it to mean that the cyclist's acceleration is 2 m/s2 starting at the top. However, this is irrelevant because the position and speed at the top are both known, so it doesn't matter what happened before.Why deceleration? The cyclist is going faster going down the hill, which is usually what happens! The speed is to be considered here with respect to the ground, not along two Cartesian coordinates.See above.
Thanks. Noted with regards...
 
Back
Top