Identifying limit of puck height

  • Thread starter Thread starter Winums2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Height Limit
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the maximum height a hockey puck can reach when shot at 100 mph from 30 feet away, using modified physics formulas that account for drag and lift. The calculations indicate that the puck can only reach a maximum height of approximately 46.64 inches, which is below the crossbar height of 48 inches. Adjusting the puck's angle slightly reduces the height further, suggesting that the lift coefficient peaks around 25 degrees. There is skepticism regarding the accuracy of these results, especially when considering that high school players can hit the crossbar from the same distance. The conversation emphasizes the need to compare real-life conditions with the theoretical model presented in the textbook.
Winums2
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



This homework isn't for a course. There is a book on hockey physics with a section discussing puck drop below intended target. When I use the book's formula modified for drag and lift, it seems to show that a 100 mph shot, taken from 30 feet from the net, can not hit the crossbar. The puck height reaches a maximum height of 46.63652463 inches with an initial puck angle of 24 degrees. Changing to 23 and 25 degrees reduce the final puck height. I guess this result is either because of the lift coefficient peaking near 25 degrees as mentioned on page 78 or because on the bottom of page 77 it is mentioned that formula 3.7 which includes a simple fit to data is only valid to within 20 percent.

I'm wondering why the puck won't rise above 48 inches.

I think I’ve seen high school kids, whom I doubt can shoot 100 mph, hit the crossbar from 30 feet away.

Homework Equations



Are provided in order below.

The Attempt at a Solution

Here is my work, in case I’ve made some mistakes.Formula 3.3 to determine puck drop below target without air resistance:gx2

________________2v2 cos2θg = 9.80665 m/s2x = 30’ = 9.144 metersv = 100 mph = 44.704 m/sθ = 24 degrees = 0.4188790205 radians
Formula 3.3 with drag:Formula 3.5 = velocity dropVelocity drop = -6.3 * (1/10/10/10) * 44.704 * 9.144 = -2.575272269Velocity at end = 44.704 + -2.575272269 = 42.12872773Average velocity = (44.704 + 42.12872773) / 2 = 43.41636387Formula 3.3 using average velocity:(9.80665 * (9.144 * 9.144)) / (2 * (43.41636387 * 43.41636387) * (cos(0.4188790205) * cos(0.4188790205))) = 0.2606128904 meters puck drop from target0.2606128904 meters = 10.16390273 inchesPuck height would be 48 - 10 = 38 inchesFormula 3.3 with drag and lift:Formula 3.7 (This is the simple fit to data):(4 * (1/10/10/10/10/10) * 24 degrees -7.8 * (1/10/10/10/10/10/10/10) * 24 degrees * 24 degrees = 0.00051072Formula 3.6 lift:0.00051072 from formula 3.7 * 44.704 initial velocity * 44.704 initial velocity = 1.020647166 liftNew gravity = gravity minus (lift / mass) (from bottom paragraph of page 79):Puck Mass: Page 85 shows puck mass as 170 grams. However, to get the calculations in the bottom paragraph of page 79 to end up at 32 inches I used 0.138 for puck mass. Using .170097 for puck mass gave me an answer of 33.5 inches.9.80665 gravity - (1.020647166 lift / 0.138 mass) = 2.40465604348 revised gravityFormula 3.3 with drag and lift:(2.40465604348 gravity revised for lift * (9.144 distance in meters * 9.144 distance in meters)) / ( 2 * (43.41636387 avg velocity * 43.41636387 average velocity) * (COS(0.4188790205 puck angle in radians) * COS(0.4188790205 puck angle in radians))) = 0.06 meters puck drop.06 meters puck drop = 2.498475371 inches puck drop below target[/B]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Youd have to compare the conditions irl with the model the textbook uses.
 
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