MHB Gabrielle's question at Yahoo Answers regarding related rates

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarkFL
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Related rates
AI Thread Summary
Gabrielle's calculus question involves determining the speed at which the tip of a shadow moves as a man walks away from a street light. The problem uses similar triangles to derive a formula relating the height of the pole, the man's height, and their distances. By differentiating the formula with respect to time, the rate of change of the shadow's length is calculated. The final result shows that the tip of the shadow moves at approximately 11.304 feet per second. This solution emphasizes the application of related rates in calculus.
MarkFL
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
13,284
Reaction score
12
Here is the question:

This is a calculus I question in the section about related rates.?

This is a calculus I question in the section about related rates.
A street light is at the top of a 13.000 ft. tall pole. A man 6.100 ft tall walks away from the pole with a speed of 6.000 feet/sec along a straight path. How fast is the tip of his shadow moving when he is 33.000 feet from the pole?

Here is a link to the question:

This is a calculus I question in the section about related rates.? - Yahoo! Answers

I have posted a link there to this topic so the OP can find my response.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hello Gabrielle,

I like to work problems like this in general terms, derive a formula, then plug in the given data at the end. First let's draw a diagram. $L$ represents the height of the light pole, $M$ represents the height of the man, $x$ represents the distance of the man from the pole, and $s$ represents the length of the man's shadow:

2hzkf83.jpg


By similarity, we may state:

$$\frac{L}{x+s}=\frac{M}{s}$$

Cross-multiply:

$$Ls=M(x+s)$$

Solve for $s$:

$$(L-M)s=Mx$$

$$s=\frac{M}{L-M}x$$

Now, differentiate with respect to time $t$:

$$\frac{ds}{dt}=\frac{M}{L-M}\cdot\frac{dx}{dt}$$

This is the rate of growth of the length of the shadow. To find how fast the tip $T$ of the shadow is changing, we need to add $$\frac{dx}{dt}$$ as this growth is relative to the man's position:

$$\frac{dT}{dt}=\frac{M}{L-M}\cdot \frac{dx}{dt}+\frac{dx}{dt}= \frac{dx}{dt}\left(\frac{M}{L-M}+1 \right)= \frac{dx}{dt}\cdot\frac{L}{L-M}$$

We see that this is constant, i.e., it does not depend on how far the man is from the pole. So, plugging in the given data, we find:

$$\frac{dT}{dt}=\left(6\,\frac{\text{ft}}{\text{s}} \right)\left(\frac{13\text{ ft}}{(13-6.1)\text{ ft}} \right)=\frac{260}{23}\,\frac{\text{ft}}{\text{s}}$$

Since the given data is accurate to 3 decimal places, we round the final result to:

$$\frac{dT}{dt}\approx11.304\,\frac{\text{ft}}{\text{s}}$$

To Gabrielle and any other guests viewing this topic, I invite and encourage you to post other related rates problems in our http://www.mathhelpboards.com/f10/ forum.

Best Regards,

Mark.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top