Is This Calculator Incorrect for Predicting Impact Force of a Falling Object?

  • Thread starter Thread starter westerndragon76
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculator
AI Thread Summary
The calculator in question appears to only consider the stopping force after a falling object encounters a surface, neglecting the continuous influence of gravity during the fall. It is suggested that the stopping distance should be included in the height measurement to accurately calculate impact force. For example, using a mass of 50kg and a height of 10m with a stopping distance of 5m results in a calculated force of 1480N, while the calculator outputs 980N. This discrepancy arises because the calculator's assumptions may not apply when the stopping distance is significant compared to the height. Clarification of the calculator's caveat regarding height and stopping distance is essential for accurate predictions.
westerndragon76
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I believe that this calculator generates answers assuming that the only force acting on a falling object after it has encountered a stopping surface is the force of the stopping surface. The calculator needs to factor in gravity throughout the whole fall. Would someone else please verify?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Click Mechanics, work-energy principle, and then impact force of falling object, and "Since you know velocity, mass, and kinetic energy, can you predict the force of impact?"
Example numbers:
m=50kg, h=10m, d=5m
stopping force should be about 1480N, but the calculator is saying 980N.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Read the little note at the bottom of that page.

Note that the above calculation of impact force is accurate only if the height h includes the stopping distance, since the process of penetration is further decreasing its gravitational potential energy.

That should take care of your problem (you probably should use d=5, h=5 to describe the situation I think you have in mind). If not for this disclaimer, the calculation would be, as you point out, wrong for the general case where d is not necessarily small compared to h.
 
I didn't take time to read that disclaimer carefully. Thanks for the quick answer!
 
It is not a disclaimer, it is a caveat. :mad:
 
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