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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the time taken for a cyclist to travel from the top of a slope to its base, utilizing concepts of acceleration and initial velocity. The cyclist experiences a constant acceleration of 2 m/s² while ascending, and upon descending, the initial velocity is established at 1.5 m/s. Participants clarify that the cyclist's acceleration remains 2 m/s² at the top, and the focus should be on speed relative to the ground rather than Cartesian coordinates. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding acceleration in the context of motion on slopes.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic mechanics principles, specifically acceleration and velocity.
  • Familiarity with kinematic equations for motion analysis.
  • Knowledge of how to visualize motion on slopes.
  • Ability to interpret acceleration in different contexts (e.g., ascent vs. descent).
NEXT STEPS
  • Study kinematic equations for uniformly accelerated motion.
  • Learn about the effects of gravity on motion down slopes.
  • Explore the concept of relative velocity in different frames of reference.
  • Investigate real-world applications of acceleration in cycling dynamics.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, mechanics enthusiasts, and anyone interested in understanding motion dynamics, particularly in relation to slopes and acceleration.

chwala
Gold Member
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
420
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...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K