Hockey Player Acceleration Question

  • Thread starter MalusIgnis
  • Start date
  • #1
MalusIgnis
10
0
Hi,
I'm a physics newbie wondering if I've done this question right. I'll type the question as it is in my assignment along with my interpretation of it.

A hockey player is standing on his skates on a frozen pond when an opposing player skates by with the puck, moving with a constant speed of 12m/s. After 3s, the first player makes up his mind to chase his opponent and starts accelerating uniformly at 4m/s^2. How long does it take him to catch the opponent?

First, I found that after 3 seconds the opposing player (P1) will be 36m away from P2. So I calculated how long it would take P2 to travel 36m at 4m/s^2. But in that length of time P1 would have traveled an additional x number of metres. So I calculated how long it would take P2 to travel those additional x number of meters. I kept doing this until they were (roughly) at the same point.
Strangely, the speed of P2 ended up being some unrealistic amount akin to a speeding car.

Did I do this question correctly?
Thanks to any who try and help. I really appreciate it. :)
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Antepolleo
40
0
Theoretically that might work, but practically that would be a nightmare. For your problem, we are interested in when the two players are essentially occupying the same space. You started out correctly... when the second player starts after the first player, they are 36 meters apart. Now lets look at one of the kinematic equations for constant acceleration:

x = xi + Vit + (1/2)at2

x is the position of the hockey player relative to an origin point we select. For this case, it would be best to call the position of the second hockey player at t=0 the origin, or x=0.

xi is the inital position of the hockey player, while Vi is the inital velocity of the hockey player. t represents time in seconds, while 'a' is the acceleration of the hockey player. We would begin by modeling both of the hockey players with this equation.

For the first hockey player, his inital position at t=0 would be 36 meters, since that is his distance from the origin we described. We know that his inital velocity is 12 m/s, and we know that he is not accelerating, which means a = 0. Our equation for him would be

x1 = 36 + 12t

For the second hockey player, we are told his acceleration, and we know he starts from rest, .i.e. Vi=0, and he is initally at the origin, so his equation is

x2 = (1/2)(4 m/s2)t2

We are interested in the case when they occupy the same space, or

x1 = x2

So let's set them equal.

(1/2)(4)t2 = 36 + 12t

Solve for t, throw out the negative root as it doesn't make sense. You have your answer.

This is the first time I posted homework help, so if I've given away too much forgive me. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #3
MalusIgnis
10
0
Thank you Antepolleo!
That helps me greatly. I spent a very long time doing it the impractical way, but it didn't feel right :)
 
  • #4
Antepolleo
40
0
I'm happy to help.

Did I explain that alright? Do you have any questions about it?
 
  • #5
MalusIgnis
10
0
Actually I do.
I'm trying to solve for t, and my algebra skills aren't what they used to be. I'm assuming by "throw out the negative root" you mean ignoring the solution of t=0.

So, if I have this:
(1/2)(4m/s^2)t^2=36+12t

Can that be simplified to:
0=(12m/s-2m/s^2t)t+36?

If so, I get t=12/2+36
 
  • #6
Antepolleo
40
0
Originally posted by MalusIgnis
Actually I do.
I'm trying to solve for t, and my algebra skills aren't what they used to be. I'm assuming by "throw out the negative root" you mean ignoring the solution of t=0.

So, if I have this:
(1/2)(4m/s^2)t^2=36+12t

Can that be simplified to:
0=(12m/s-2m/s^2t)t+36?

If so, I get t=12/2+36

I'm sorry about that, I accidentally included the units with the acceleration and not with anything else. Try solving this:

(1/2)(4)t2 = 36 + 12t
 
  • #7
MalusIgnis
10
0
(1/2)(4)t^2 = 36 + 12t
2t^2=36+12t
t^2=18+6t
This makes perfect sense so far, but I forget how I am supposed to factor out the t in 6t.
Sorry, it's been a while since I've done algebra :)
 
  • #8
MalusIgnis
10
0
silly me, don't I need to use the quadratic formula with this equation?
 
  • #9
MalusIgnis
10
0
Plugging in those numbers I get 8.2 seconds.
That makes sense. I think I'm done now :)
Thanks again!
 
  • #10
Antepolleo
40
0
Glad I could help.

Now if only someone would answer my thread... :smile:
 

Suggested for: Hockey Player Acceleration Question

Replies
5
Views
339
Replies
6
Views
136
Replies
16
Views
689
Replies
4
Views
396
Replies
6
Views
678
Replies
4
Views
484
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
249
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
296
Top