How to Simulate a 15lb Wood 2x4 Impact at 67 mph?

AI Thread Summary
To simulate the impact of a 15lb wood 2x4 traveling at 67 mph, a drop test can be set up from a height of 15 feet. The velocity of an object dropped from this height is approximately 21.19 mph, significantly lower than the desired speed. To achieve the same momentum as a 15lb object at 67 mph, the total weight needs to be around 47.5 pounds, requiring an additional 32.5 pounds to be added. The momentum equation, p = m*v, is essential for these calculations. This approach provides a practical method for simulating the desired impact without considering air resistance.
Moose720
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
I posted earlier about testing a project to simulate a wood 2x4 traveling at 67 mph, I did not really get the answers I was looking for so I am going to try to rephase it. My project needs to withstand the impact of a 15lb wood 2x4 traveling at 67 mph. I want to simulate this test but in a vertical fashion. I can set up a drop test up to the height of 15ft. My main question is, how much weight needs to be added to the 15lb wood 2x4 to achieve the same impact as the 15lb 2x4 @ 67mph, and also what height would it needed to be dropped from. Air resistance not a concern for this test. What formulas are used to get the results?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When I say impact, I mean just before the 2x4 would strike the surface.
 
Or am I looking for Kinetic Energy??
 
Moose, this is how I would go about it:

1. Figure out how fast the object is moving when dropped from 15 feet. This can be done with the known acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/s^2). This is the average acceleration across the Earth's surface. If you wanted a more accurate number, you'd have to factor in your elevation. This won't be necessary or matter for this purpose, unless you're at the summit of Mt. Everest or something. Anyway, the formula for the velocity of a free-falling object on Earth given a certain height is as follows:
v = sqrt(2*g*d)
v = sqrt (2 * 32.2 ft/s^2 * 15 ft)
v = 31.08 ft/s = 21.19 mph

2. Given the velocity of the object in your experiment, the desired velocity, and the desired weight, you can set up an equation of momentum. The main principle here is that you desire a momentum produced by a 15 lb object going 67 mph. Momentum is equal to the product of mass and velocity (p = m*v). Since you're looking to recreate the momentum from the desired experiment and you cannot change the velocity, you have to add mass. That gives you the following equation:
m1v1 = m2v2
(15 lb)*(67 mph) = (X lb)*(21.19 mph)
X = 47.43 lbs

3. So, for your experiment to produce the required momentum, your total weight needs to be 47.43 ~ 47.5 pounds. You currently have a 15 lb mass so therefore, you need to add an extra 32.5 lbs of mass to your weight.

4. Just as a note, there are some inaccuracies in this experiment. The calculations I made were using point-masses, not actual objects. The difference is not very large at all and will be negligable in what you're trying to accomplish. I would not worry about those. I figure that if air resistance isn't necessary, then it isn't necessary to dive into the center of mass/inertia values for the mass.

Hope this helps!
 
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...
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