Freefall with constant velocity

AI Thread Summary
When a helicopter releases an object with constant horizontal velocity, the object will always be directly below the helicopter, assuming no air resistance. Therefore, the moment the object hits the truck occurs when the horizontal distance between the helicopter and the truck is zero. This confirms that the object will fall straight down onto the truck. The discussion emphasizes the relationship between constant velocity and the object's trajectory. Overall, the concept illustrates basic principles of physics related to motion and gravity.
Femme_physics
Gold Member
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
1
(not a homework question, just something I thought about)

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1130/hellhell.jpg


So, if I'm told that the helicopter here let's go of an object and he wants the object to hit the truck. (all objects are "point mass"). Can I say right from the get go that, as long as there is constant velocity, the moment where the object hits the truck is exactly where the horizontal distance between the helicopter and the truck is zero. Correct?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Femme_physics! :wink:

Yes, the falling object (if we ignore air resistance) is immediately below the helicopter at all times. :smile:
 
Yay!

Tiny-tim! :D So glad to see you replying to me again! *hugs!* and thanks!

And glad that I'm right :)
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Counter-rotating mass to counteract inertial spin
Replies
10
Views
2K
B Velocity of freefalling bodies after 1s, 2s, 3s, etc
Replies
18
Views
2K
Stopping acceleration and starting to move at constant speed
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Drag equation - relative flow velocity
Replies
11
Views
3K
B The physics of flywheel launchers (like tennis ball shooters)
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
Collision in moving water-angle of rebound
Replies
8
Views
2K
F = m x a, but what if velocity is constant (making a zero)?
Replies
10
Views
6K
What is the final velocity of an object sliding down a frictionless ramp?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Energy in different inertial frames
Replies
7
Views
2K
I Interception problem with curve (computer simulation)
Replies
9
Views
673

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top