Is My Calculation of 81.48 Meters in Projectile Motion Correct?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the accuracy of a calculation for projectile motion, specifically questioning the reported height of 81.48 meters. It emphasizes the importance of breaking the problem into segments and suggests that the initial approach may be flawed due to incorrect vertical displacement calculations. The recommendation is made to avoid plugging in numbers too early in the process, advocating for a symbolic approach to maintain clarity and check for errors. Additionally, the need for better organization in presenting the work is highlighted to improve understanding. Overall, the conversation stresses the importance of methodical problem-solving in physics calculations.
Kingyou123
Messages
98
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Check for first upload

Homework Equations


I wrote them down in my attempt at a solution

The Attempt at a Solution


Second upload, 81.48 meters high seems really wrong to me...
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    23.9 KB · Views: 392
  • 20150929_214123.jpg
    20150929_214123.jpg
    37.8 KB · Views: 325
Physics news on Phys.org
As an aside, looking at your work is hard to follow. I think you could work on your organizational skills and hold off a bit more before plugging in numbers.

Your height at 95 meters downrange is incorrect, why don't we break this problem into segments. What are you trying to find initially to solve this problem?
 
  • Like
Likes Kingyou123
Since the launch angle is 45 degrees, you can make use of the fact that vx = vy for the components of initial velocity.
 
  • Like
Likes Kingyou123
The formula you quote at the end of line 6 (d= etc.) is only valid when there is no net vertical displacement.
I heartily endorse Student100's advice to avoid plugging in numbers until the very end. Work the algebra entirely symbolically. Much easier to follow, to check for dimensional consistency, to spot algebraic mistakes...
 
  • Like
Likes Kingyou123
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 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
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