Is my equation for projectile trajectory accurate?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the accuracy of a derived equation for the trajectory of a projectile, focusing on the initial angle of launch based on height, distance, and initial velocity. Participants explore the mathematical formulation and physical principles involved in projectile motion, including kinetic and potential energy considerations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an equation for projectile trajectory derived from known parameters and expresses uncertainty about its correctness.
  • Another participant questions the definitions of height and distance in the context of the equation, suggesting a misunderstanding of kinetic energy principles unless the shot is vertical.
  • A clarification is made regarding the potential energy at the vertex of the trajectory, indicating it should relate to the initial vertical velocity rather than being zero.
  • Participants discuss the initial launch position and the notation used for the vertex of the parabola, with some disagreement on the correct interpretation of the coordinates.
  • One participant suggests a mathematical approach to simplify the equation involving trigonometric identities to express the relationship in terms of sine and cosine.
  • A participant shares plans to experimentally test the derived equation by launching a marble at various angles and velocities, raising concerns about the accuracy of rubber bands compared to springs in the setup.
  • Another participant reports testing the spring constant of rubber bands, finding it to be linear under certain conditions, and shares results from their experiments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the initial energy considerations and the definitions of variables used in the projectile motion equations. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing interpretations and approaches presented.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about energy conservation and the definitions of height and distance in the context of projectile motion. The mathematical steps involved in deriving the equations are not fully resolved, and the experimental setup's accuracy is still under consideration.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring projectile motion in physics, those involved in experimental physics, and participants looking to understand the nuances of deriving equations related to motion and energy.

person123
Messages
326
Reaction score
52
I derived an equation for the trajectory of a projectile. Given the height and distance of the projectile, and the initial velocity, it determines the initial angle. When plugging it into desmos, it seemed to make sense (https://www.desmos.com/calculator/pfylvs4tau), but I still can't be sure.

I first determined the vertex of the parabola. I knew two points of the parabola and the derivative at one of these points. This gave me the following:

2ziqx5s.png


30kfzit.png


where d is the horizantal distance from the target, l is the vertical distance, and θ is the initial angle.

Since I knew the initial kinetic energy is the same is the product of the mass, acceleration due to gravity, and the height k, I was able to solve for the velocity v. By moving around the variables in this equation, it gave me

106c9kk.png


Does my method seem correct? Do the equations seem correct? (There's also the problem that I can't get theta completely to one side, although that's not really a physics problem).
 

Attachments

  • 4sd3t5.png
    4sd3t5.png
    1,007 bytes · Views: 527
  • equation for h.png
    equation for h.png
    993 bytes · Views: 469
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If k is the height, what's h?
person123 said:
Since I knew the initial kinetic energy is the same is the product of the mass, acceleration due to gravity, and the height k,
This is incorrect unless it's a vertical shot. The change in kinetic energy is equal to the change in gravitational potential, but the kinetic energy at the top of the trajectory is not zero in general.
 
Ibix said:
If k is the height, what's h?

h is the horizontal distance from the object's initial location to the vertex of the parabola.

Ibix said:
This is incorrect unless it's a vertical shot. The change in kinetic energy is equal to the change in gravitational potential, but the kinetic energy at the top of the trajectory is not zero in general.

Sorry about that—that is a problem with the explanation of my work. The potential energy at the vertex would be equal to half of the product of mass and the initial vertical velocity squared. My work uses this instead of what I wrote previously.
 
So - you are launching from x=h, y=l to hit a target at x=0, y=0. The shot is initially launched at speed v at angle ##\theta## to the horizontal. The peak of the arc is x=d, y=k.

Is that right?
 
No. You initially launch at position (0,0). For the peak of the arc, I just used the standard notation for a vertex of a parabola, (h,k). The target is the coordinate (d,l). (I used l because I was running out of letters). As you said, the target is launched with velocity v at an angle θ above the horizontal.
 
Sorry - this slipped off my todo list.

I agree all your expressions. To solve your last one, I suggest backing up a couple of steps. You'll have had something like $$\frac{d^2}{\cos^2\theta}=\frac{2v^2}{g}(d\tan\theta-l)$$If you multiply both sides by ##\cos^2\theta## and apply double-angle formulae you should be able to get an expression in terms of the sine and cosine of ##2\theta##. That ought to be solvable.
 
I have decided on putting this equation to the test. I'm going to shoot a projectile (a marble) at different angles and velocities and see if it lands at the predicted location. I decided on using a makeshift slingshot to propel the marble, but I have a question on what to make it out of.

The easiest solution would be to use rubber bands. However, it seems that rubber bands don't follow Hooke's law with nearly as much accuracy as would an actual spring (http://c21.phas.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/rubber_band_write_up.pdf https://www.wired.com/2012/08/do-rubber-bands-act-like-springs/). I'm wondering if that would be a significant enough inaccuracy to make my results unreliable—it's quite difficult to extrapolate the data provided for my situation.

I would use springs instead, but the only ones I found were really too stiff for this experiment.
 
Last edited:
Edit:

I tested the spring constant for rubber bands, and it gave me something pretty linear. I did it for both one rubber band and 4 rubber bands attached in a chain. Here are the results:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/w0dd8dpuf87.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
23K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K