Help: maximum force of an object when given impulse and time on a graph

AI Thread Summary
To find the maximum force from the impulse graph, the area under the force vs. time curve must equal the impulse of 6.0 N*s. The graph shows a triangular shape peaking at 6 seconds and dropping to zero at 8 seconds, indicating the need to calculate the area of this triangle accurately. The correct formula for the area of a triangle is (1/2) * base * height, where the base is 8 seconds and the height is the maximum force. The confusion arises from whether to include the horizontal segment from 8 to 10 seconds in the area calculation, which does not contribute to impulse since the force is zero. The slope is constant while the force is rising but changes during the fall; thus, the area calculation must reflect the correct time intervals to determine the maximum force accurately.
hsphysicsstud
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I need help finding the maximum force of an object from an impulse graph. The graph of the force vs time gives me up to 10 seconds and the problem tells me that the impulse is 6.0 N*s. the line of the graph starts at (0,0), rises with a constant slope and peaks at 6 seconds. From there it falls back to 0 force at 8 seconds. The line then continues at 0 on the y-axis but the the x-axis passes 10 secs. My first thought in finding the area of the region under the line was to do (1/2)bh. So I did (1/2)8h=6.0 and when i solved for h got 3/2. That came out to be wrong so then i tried changing the base to 10 because although the line reached 0 at 8 seconds it continued moving horizontally to 10 secs and I wasn't sure if that made a difference or not. So I did (1/2)10h=6 and got 6/5 and that was still wrong. So now I'm stumped because every time I look up how to find impulse it tells me that do the area and since I worked backwards I thought I had done it right but I guess I didn't. Can anyone tell me where I went wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is the slope still a constant during the fall between 6s-8s?
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top