Intial Velocity of an Object In Free Fall

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the initial velocity of an object dropped from a height of 2.195 meters, which takes 0.96 seconds to reach the ground under Earth's gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s². The participants derive the kinematic equations necessary for solving the problem, specifically using the formula v0 = (1/2t)(2Δx - at²). They clarify the values for time (t = 0.96 s), change in position (Δx = 2.195 m), and acceleration (a = 9.81 m/s²). The discussion concludes with an emphasis on the significance of the negative initial velocity indicating an upward motion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Kinematic equations of motion
  • Understanding of gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s²)
  • Basic calculus for integration
  • Unit conversion and dimensional analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of kinematic equations in physics
  • Learn about the implications of negative velocity in motion
  • Explore advanced topics in calculus related to motion analysis
  • Investigate real-world applications of free fall and projectile motion
USEFUL FOR

Students studying physics, educators teaching kinematics, and anyone interested in understanding the principles of motion under gravity.

KermitFrog
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
So I have to calculate the initial velocity of an object I dropped from 2.195 meters that took .96 seconds to hit the ground, given that the Earth's gravitational pull is 9.81m/s^2. What direction/step should I first take in order to solve this? I'm not asking for the answer just a step or two in the direction of finding the answer. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would begin with:

$$\d{v}{t}=a$$ where $a$ is a constant.

Thus:

$$dv=a\,dt$$

Now, if we integrate with respect to time $t$, we obtain:

$$\int_{v_0}^{v(t)}\,dv=a\int_0^t\,dt$$

And so we have:

$$v(t)-v_0=at\implies v(t)=at+v_0$$

Now, we also know:

$$\d{x}{t}=v(t)=at+v_0$$

Integrating again w.r.t $t$, we get:

$$\int_{0}^{x(t)}\,dx=\int _0^t at+v_0\,dt$$

$$x(t)=\frac{a}{2}t^2+v_0t$$

So, solving for $v_0$, what do you get?
 
MarkFL said:
I would begin with:

$$\d{v}{t}=a$$ where $a$ is a constant.

Thus:

$$dv=a\,dt$$

Now, if we integrate with respect to time $t$, we obtain:

$$\int_{v_0}^{v(t)}\,dv=a\int_0^t\,dt$$

And so we have:

$$v(t)-v_0=at\implies v(t)=at+v_0$$

Now, we also know:

$$\d{x}{t}=v(t)=at+v_0$$

Integrating again w.r.t $t$, we get:

$$\int_{0}^{x(t)}\,dx=\int _0^t at+v_0\,dt$$

$$x(t)=\frac{a}{2}t^2+v_0t$$

So, solving for $v_0$, what do you get?

v0 = ( x(t)- (a/2)t^2 )/t ?
 
KermitFrog said:
v0 = ( x(t)- (a/2)t^2 )/t ?

Yes! (Yes)

I have written this formula equivalently on my "cheat sheet" for kinematics as:

$$v_0=\frac{1}{2t}\left(2\Delta x-at^2\right)$$

So, now we need to identify, from the given data, the following:

$$t,\,\Delta x,\,a$$

And then plug them into our formula...what do you get?
 
MarkFL said:
Yes! (Yes)

I have written this formula equivalently on my "cheat sheet" for kinematics as:

$$v_0=\frac{1}{2t}\left(2\Delta x-at^2\right)$$

So, now we need to identify, from the given data, the following:

$$t,\,\Delta x,\,a$$

And then plug them into our formula...what do you get?

Is it t= .96, Delta x = 9.81, and a = 2.195?
 
KermitFrog said:
Is it t= .96, Delta x = 9.81, and a = 2.195?

Well, you are correct that (don't forget your units) that:

$$t=0.96\text{ s}$$

However, the acceleration $a$ here is that which is due to gravity, so we have:

$$a=g=9.81\frac{\text{m}}{\text{s}^2}$$

and the change in position is:

$$\Delta x=2.195\text{ m}$$

So, plugging those into our formula, what do you find?
 
MarkFL said:
Well, you are correct that (don't forget your units) that:

$$t=0.96\text{ s}$$

However, the acceleration $a$ here is that which is due to gravity, so we have:

$$a=g=9.81\frac{\text{m}}{\text{s}^2}$$

and the change in position is:

$$\Delta x=2.195\text{ m}$$

So, plugging those into our formula, what do you find?

v(0) = -2.232 m/s ?
 
KermitFrog said:
v(0) = -2.232 m/s ?

I get:

$$v_0=\frac{1}{2\left(0.96\text{ s}\right)}\left(2\left(2.195\text{ m}\right)-\left(9.81\frac{\text{m}}{\text{s}^2}\right)\left(0.96\text{ s}\right)^2\right)=-\frac{290681}{120000}\,\frac{\text{m}}{\text{s}}\approx-2.42\,\frac{\text{m}}{\text{s}}$$

Without seeing your computations, I can't say why our answers differ. Do you understand the significance of the negative sign? Which direction are we taking to be positive here?
 
MarkFL said:
I get:

$$v_0=\frac{1}{2\left(0.96\text{ s}\right)}\left(2\left(2.195\text{ m}\right)-\left(9.81\frac{\text{m}}{\text{s}^2}\right)\left(0.96\text{ s}\right)^2\right)=-\frac{290681}{120000}\,\frac{\text{m}}{\text{s}}\approx-2.42\,\frac{\text{m}}{\text{s}}$$

Without seeing your computations, I can't say why our answers differ. Do you understand the significance of the negative sign? Which direction are we taking to be positive here?

I made an error when plugging the numbers into my calculator! Since gravity pulls objects downward wouldn't the negative sign indicate that the object was going upward?
 
  • #10
KermitFrog said:
I made an error when plugging the numbers into my calculator! Since gravity pulls objects downward wouldn't the negative sign indicate that the object was going upward?

Yes, we have set in our derivation down to be the positive direction, and so a negative initial velocity would mean it was initially moving in the upward direction. :)

Do we need to concern ourselves with the fact that the object then actually moved though a greater distance than the distance from the initial and final positions? It started out at 2.195 m above the ground and then moved up, and then down to the ground...
 
  • #11
MarkFL said:
Yes, we have set in our derivation down to be the positive direction, and so a negative initial velocity would mean it was initially moving in the upward direction. :)

Do we need to concern ourselves with the fact that the object then actually moved though a greater distance than the distance from the initial and final positions? It started out at 2.195 m above the ground and then moved up, and then down to the ground...
I don't think so. Thanks for the help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
633
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
3K