Highway Patrol - Argh, looks so simple

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rockdog
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the distance from a highway patrol car when a driver first sees it while decelerating from 85 mph to 65 mph. The driver applies brakes, decelerating at 4 mph/sec for 5 seconds, covering 0.104 miles, and then maintains 65 mph for an additional 10 seconds, covering 0.180 miles. The total distance traveled before passing the patrol car is 0.284 miles, which can be converted to meters for the final answer. Participants emphasize the importance of consistent unit conversions and correctly interpreting the problem's time frame. The final distance in meters is derived from the total miles traveled.
Rockdog
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Suppose you are driving on the interstate at 85 mph when you see a highway patrol car parked up ahead. You apply your brakes, decelerating at a constant rate of 4 mph/sec until you're reduced your speed to 65 mph. You then maintain a constant speed of 65 mph. You pass the patrol car 15 seconds after you initially applied the brakes and are relieved that he doesn't pull out after you. How far away was the highway patrol car when you first saw it?


And it wants the answers in meters...
------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what I tried doing so far, but to no avail.
v0=85mph => .0236 m/sec
vf=65mph => .0181 m/sec
t0=0
tf=15sec
a=-4mph/sec

Okay. I've tried this equation x-x0=(1/2)(v0+v)*t and solved for x with an answer of .31275 m, but that doesn't work. :-(

I've tried vf^2=v0^2+2*a(xf-x0) and solve for displacement, but that answer doesn't work either.

Maybe I'm interpreting the initial values wrong or something. Any insight appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your conversions from miles per hour to meters per second are incorrect.

85mi/hr = 37.99m/s
65mi/hr = 29.06m/s

And you can't use -4mph/s as an acceleration because the units do not work. You have to convert everything to either hours or seconds, you can't mix them. Your units have to be either mph/h or mps/s.

Try changing those values and see where you get.
 
ThatOneGuy (I thought you were the other guy!): I misunderstood also: RockDog means MILES per second, not meters per second.

His conversion for that is correct: 85 mph/3600 s/hr= 0.0236 miles per second. 65 mph/3600 s/h= 0.0180 miles per second.

The error is in not accounting for the deceleration and constant speed parts separately.

The driver decelerates from 85 to 65, a reduction of 20 mph, at a deceleration of 4 mph per second and so decelerates for 5 seconds.
Since the deceleration is constant, you can treat the entire 5 seconds as if it were at the "average" speed, 75 mph (that's the point of RockDog's equation "x-x0=(1/2)(v0+v)*t "). Of course, you could also calculate d= v0t+ (1/2)a t2.
Using the "average" speed, 75 mph= (75)/3600= 0.0208 miles per second so in 5 seconds he went (0.0208)(5)= 0.104 miles.
Using the quadratic formula, d= (0.0236)(5)- (1/2)(0.0011)(25)
= 0.104 miles (notice that I converted "4 mph per second" to "0.0011 miles per second per second).

Either way, we arrive at 0.104 miles traveled during the deceleration.

Now the car continues at 65 mph (= 0.0180 miles per second) for 15 seconds which would give (0.0180)(15)= 0.27 miles.

The car traveled a total of 0.104+ 0.27= 0.374 miles.
 
Sup guys. I figured something out, HallsofIvy, you messed up on a tiny little part. :-)

Since the car decelerated for 5 seconds, that meant it would have 10 seconds left cruising at a constant speed of 65mph. Thus, the last stretch of distance would be 65 mph (= 0.0180 miles per second) for 10 seconds = .180 miles.

Then just convert total miles to meters.
 
Last edited:
Right: I misread the problem. I thought it said 15 seconds at constant speed instead of 15 seconds total time.

But why convert miles to meters? The problem gives everything in terms of miles- give the answer that way.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top