Free Fall Calculation: Accurate Distance in Seconds

AI Thread Summary
A 3D artist is seeking precise calculations for an object's free fall in animation, needing to determine distances at fractions of a second. The artist initially believed an object falls 32 feet in the first second and 64 feet in the second, but this was incorrect; the correct formula is D = 1/2 g t^2, where g is approximately 32.15 ft/s². The artist found a free fall calculator app but received inaccurate outputs, leading to confusion about the physics of free fall. Clarification revealed that the app's calculations were correct, and the misunderstanding stemmed from misinterpreting acceleration due to gravity. Accurate understanding of the formula is essential for achieving realistic animation results.
icon kid
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I'm a 3D artist and I'm making an animation that involves a free falling object. I know that, in a vacuum at least, an object will fall 32 feet during the first second; during the second second it'll fall 64 feet -- a total of 96 feet after only two seconds of free falling. The problem is that I need to know exactly how far an object has fallen at precise fractions of a second which is difficult to figure out unless someone knows of an easy, handy formula.

Each second of time is divided into 30 parts (frames). In this case I'm "keying" every other frame so the chart for this would look like the one below. In Frame 0 the object is at it's holding position but then it's let go to start falling. In Frame 2, the object has been falling for only a 15th of a second (0.0666 seconds) but I need to know exactly how far it traveled because I have to manually place the object at that point in space at that instant of time and then reposition it again and again after each 15th of a second passes, -- in order for the acceleration to be accurate and look natural.


-- 30 frames/second --

Frame 0 -- 0 seconds Distance = 0 feet
Frame 2 -- 1/15th second (0.0666) Distance = ? feet
Frame 4 -- 2/15th second (0.1332) Distance = ? feet
Frame 6 -- 3/15th second (0.1998) Distance = ? feet
Frame 8 -- 4/15th second (0.2664) Distance = ? feet
Frame 10 -- 5/15th second (0.3333) Distance = ? feet
Frame 12 -- 6/15th second (0.3996) Distance = ? feet
Frame 14 -- 7/15th second (0.4662) Distance = ? feet
Frame 16 -- 8/15th second (0.5328) Distance = ? feet
Frame 18 -- 9/15th second (0.5994) Distance = ? feet
Frame 20 -- 10/15th second (0.6666) Distance = ? feet
Frame 22 -- 11/15th second (0.7326) Distance = ? feet
Frame 24 -- 12/15th second (0.7992) Distance = ? feet
Frame 26 -- 13/15th second (0.8658) Distance = ? feet
Frame 28 -- 14/15th second (0.9324) Distance = ? feet
Frame 30 -- 1 second (1.0000) Distance = 32 feet

I found a free app that does free fall calculations but something seems wrong with the output I'm getting from it.

Here's a screen shot it.
http://www.jeffs-icons.com/free_fall_calc.gif

I'm using the calculation method for objects falling in a vacuum so the size (volume) and weight (mass) of the object as well as atmospheric parameters are irrelevant. In this case I'm solving for the distance fallen in a given amount of time. Time is expressed as numerical values only, and all values are interpreted as seconds, so a duration of "1 minute and 10 seconds" has to be entered as simply 70. To test the accuracy of this app before using its output, I entered a free fall time of one second. It should have given me a distance of roughly 32 feet for a one-second free fall. Instead it gave me 16.077 feet -- and that's far from the mark, almost half.

If you want to try this app yourself go to:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Science-CAD/Free-Fall-Calculator.shtml
-- click the Free-Fall Calculator 1.0 download button
-- on the next page, right-click the "External Mirror 1" ZIP file and "Save target as." This will download a file called "Free-Fall.zip."

Does anyone know of either an online utility or a downloadable app that will give me the results I expect?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
icon kid said:
I'm a 3D artist and I'm making an animation that involves a free falling object. I know that, in a vacuum at least, an object will fall 32 feet during the first second; during the second second it'll fall 64 feet -- a total of 96 feet after only two seconds of free falling.
This is incorrect. After 1 second the object has fallen 16 feet; After 2 seconds it has fallen a total of 64 feet.

The problem is that I need to know exactly how far an object has fallen at precise fractions of a second which is difficult to figure out unless someone knows of an easy, handy formula.
The formula you need is (where time is in seconds and distance is in feet):
D = 1/2 g t^2 = 16 t^2

More accurately, the acceleration due to gravity (g) is closer to 32.15 ft/s^2 than 32 ft/s^2:
D = 1/2 g t^2 = 16.075 t^2


I found a free app that does free fall calculations but something seems wrong with the output I'm getting from it.
The problem is not with the app, but with your understanding of free fall. Read this: Freefall
 
Last edited:
So I've misinterpreted the meaning of "32 feet per second squared" and the output of this free-fall calculator is reliable -- and easier to use than hand-working the formula which you graciously provided.
Thank you Doc Al.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top