Help for Screenwriter on Stan Lee project

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neil B
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Project
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the impact speed of a man weighing 72 kg who jumps from a height of 287 meters, considering factors such as air resistance and body orientation during the fall. Participants explore theoretical approaches, numerical methods, and the implications of various assumptions in the context of physics and screenwriting.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the man's weight affects the fall, suggesting that mass may not be significant in certain calculations.
  • There are inquiries about the orientation of the fall, with some participants humorously suggesting different positions based on the character's diet.
  • One participant argues that air resistance cannot be ignored and proposes estimating frontal area and drag coefficient to refine calculations.
  • Another participant provides a calculation for impact velocity using conservation of energy, yielding a result of 270 km/hr without air resistance.
  • There are conflicting views on the impact velocity, with one participant noting that the calculated speed exceeds terminal velocity, prompting questions about the validity of the results.
  • Several participants discuss the time it takes to reach the ground, with estimates ranging around 7 to 9 seconds, depending on the assumptions made regarding air resistance.
  • One participant mentions the need for a drag coefficient that varies with body orientation, indicating uncertainty in the calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the significance of air resistance, the impact of body orientation, and the resulting calculations for speed and time of fall. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus on the best approach or final answers.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on assumptions regarding air resistance, body orientation, and the drag coefficient, which are not universally agreed upon. The calculations presented vary based on these assumptions.

Neil B
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
A man weighs 72 kg. he jumps from a tower 287m high. No windspeed. What appoximate speed wil he hit the ground in Km/hour?

Please help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you reckon his weight matters?
 
Does he fall mostly head first, feet first, front first, or back first?
 
Last edited:
Dr. Courtney said:
Does he call mostly head first, feet first, front first, or back first?
He usually calls head first, but when he's had a lot of beans, sometimes it's back first.
 
I don't think one can ignore air resistance on this one. It seems likely to be in the region before terminal velocity but after air resistance has become significant. This means the best approach is to estimate frontal area and coefficient of drag and numerically integrate the diff eq. Mass matters here.
 
Assume he falls head first. that's what we've already filmed. Like a swallow dive. The actors about 5 ft 8. I'd say 42 inch chest. If that helps?
 
There's this calc here:
http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1231475371
The air resistance coefficient they use is 0.24 kg/m, which they say is typical for skydiving. They don't say which position it is, though.

I tried calculating the coefficient from ##F=\frac{1}{2}qC_dAV^2##, where I took q to be 1,2 kg/m^3, C_d for an upright man to be 1 (from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient) and the area equal to 0,12 m^2 (42" chest is about the same cross-section as a circle with 0.16m radius, plus a bit extra for arms, say r=0.2m). It nets an air resistance coefficient of about 0,07 which I think would be about right if the one in the calculator is for a horizontal falling position.

Plugging that into the calc, you get 360 236 km/h for an upright position, and 200 180 km/h for a fall in a horizontal position. These numbers are consistent with (i.e. lower than) terminal velocities in skydiving as found e.g. here:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/JianHuang.shtml

(edit: wrong numbers - forgot to change height)
 
One of my basic principles is that the answer to a hard problem is often between the answers to two much easier problems. In this case, the impact velocity will be lower than that obtained ignoring air drag.

So first, we compute the impact velocity ignoring air drag.

Using conservation of energy, the kinetic energy at the bottom (0.5 m v^2) will equal the potential energy at the top (mgh).

The mass cancels out so solving for v yields v = sqrt(2*g*h) = sqrt(2*9.8 m/s/s * 287 m) = 75 m/s.

Converting to km/hr yields v = 270 km/hr.
 
Dr. Courtney said:
higher than the terminal velocity.
Why would that ever be the case?
 
  • #10
Edited a correction. Good catch.
 
  • #11
How many seconds before he reaches the ground? Will the screenwriter have the man do improbable things on the way down?
 
  • #12
jackwhirl said:
How many seconds before he reaches the ground? Will the screenwriter have the man do improbable things on the way down?
About 8 seconds.
 
  • #13
Amazing. Thank you...
 
  • #14
distance = 1/2 (a) (t^2)
t = time
a = acceleration of gravity = 9.81 m/s
distance = 287m
t = sqrt (287/(9.81/2)) =7.64 seconds in a vacuum

velocity = a * t = 7.64 * 9.81 = 75 meters/sec ( terminal velocity for a body in air is 56m/sec and takes 12 seconds, so this is wrong for a real fall in air)

The full solution with air resistance is in here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall

This takes you through it also
http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Terminal-Velocity

Turns out the mass matters when you consider air resistance.
I'm not sure what numbers to use for drag coefficient since it depends on the orientation of the body.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K