Force and motion -- Person falling from 20m onto a cushion (EASY)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a physics problem concerning a person falling from a height of 20 meters onto a 3-meter-high cushion, focusing on the dynamics of the fall and the subsequent deceleration upon impact. The subject area includes concepts of kinematics, potential energy, and forces during motion.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants present two approaches to determine the height of the person above the ground when stopped by the cushion, with one approach deemed correct and the other incorrect. There is a focus on the assumptions made regarding acceleration during the impact with the cushion.

Discussion Status

Some participants have confirmed the velocity just before impact and the average net force during the impact. There is ongoing exploration of the validity of the approaches, particularly questioning the assumption of constant acceleration after hitting the cushion. Participants are examining the implications of their calculations and the assumptions behind them.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that air resistance is negligible and that the problem assumes uniform deceleration. There is a discussion about the appropriateness of modeling the cushion's behavior, with suggestions that a spring model might be more suitable than constant acceleration assumptions.

guest948
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
A cushion is 3m high when inflated. Assume a person of mass 50kg falls onto the cushion from 20m above the ground and is brought to a stop in 0.25s after hitting the cushion. Assume air resistance is negligible.

How high is the person from the ground when he is stopped by the cushion? Assume that he decelerates uniformly.

TASK: Please help explain why approach 2 is INCORRECT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following have been confirmed:
- The person's velocity just before he hits the cushion is 18.263 ms-1 (downwards).
- The average net force acting on the person during the impact is 3652.62 N (upwards).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant Equations
s = (v+u)/2 * t
PE = mgh
KE = mv^2/2
Ft = mv - mu
APPROACH 1 (correct):

Height above ground = 3 - (v+u)/2 * t
= 3 - 18.263/2 * 0.25
= 0.717 m

-----------------------------------------------------
APPROACH 2 (incorrect):

Let d be the height from the ground when he is stopped by the cushion.
PE loss = Work done against motion by cushion
mgh = Fs
mg(20-d) = F(3-d)
50 * 9.81 * (20-d) = 3652.62 * (3-d)
d = 0.363 m
 
Physics news on Phys.org
guest948 said:
Homework Statement:: A cushion is 3m high when inflated. Assume a person of mass 50kg falls onto the cushion from 20m above the ground and is brought to a stop in 0.25s after hitting the cushion. Assume air resistance is negligible.

How high is the person from the ground when he is stopped by the cushion? Assume that he decelerates uniformly.

TASK: Please help explain why approach 2 is INCORRECT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following have been confirmed:
- The person's velocity just before he hits the cushion is 18.263 ms-1 (downwards).
- The average net force acting on the person during the impact is 3652.62 N (upwards).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant Equations:: s = (v+u)/2 * t
PE = mgh
KE = mv^2/2
Ft = mv - mu

APPROACH 1 (correct):

Height above ground = 3 - (v+u)/2 * t
= 3 - 18.263/2 * 0.25
= 0.717 m

-----------------------------------------------------
APPROACH 2 (incorrect):

Let d be the height from the ground when he is stopped by the cushion.
PE loss = Work done against motion by cushion
mgh = Fs
mg(20-d) = F(3-d)
50 * 9.81 * (20-d) = 3652.62 * (3-d)
d = 0.363 m
Both methods are wrong since they assume constant acceleration after meeting the cushion. That might be right for a snowpack, but not for an inflated cushion. A spring would be a better model.

In your second method, on the left of the equation you have the work done by gravity over the whole descent. On the right, you have the work done by the net force (which includes gravity) in the last 3-d of the descent. So you are counting the work done by gravity in the last 3-d on both sides.
See what happens if you change the 20-d to 17.
 
Last edited:
haruspex said:
.

Both methods are wrong since they assume constant acceleration after meeting the cushion. That might be right for a snowpack, but not for an inflated cushion. A spring would be a better model.

Thanks, but constant acceleration (deceleration) is assumed in this question.
 
guest948 said:
Thanks, but constant acceleration (deceleration) is assumed in this question.
Ok, so see my edit to post #2.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: guest948

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K