Is this equation for acceleration on this website wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Physicsy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Acceleration
AI Thread Summary
The discussion identifies a mistake on the website "A Physics Teacher" regarding the calculation of distance traveled during acceleration. The user correctly applies the second equation of motion, noting that the acceleration value of 2.5 m/s² was omitted in the website's equation. The correct calculation should include this value, leading to a distance of 3125 meters instead of the incorrectly stated 1250 meters. Participants agree that this oversight should be communicated to the website's author for correction. The conversation highlights the importance of accuracy in physics equations.
Physicsy
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Greetings, I've been learning the mathematics of classical physics from a website called "A physiscs teacher" (http://aphysicsteacher.blogspot.com/search/label/acceleration). While looking through the equations on the acceleration i think i found a mistake made by the website.

A bus starts from rest and accelerates at a rate of 2.5 m/s2 for a time of 50 s. Determine the distance traveled by the bus during the acceleration phase.

Now let us identify the different variables involved.

u the initial speed = 0 m/s

t time taken = 50 s

a acceleration = 2.5 m/s2

s distance traveled = ?

If we want calculate s the distance traveled we will have to use the second equation of motion

S = ut + 1/2at2

Substituting the different values we get

S = ut + 1/2at(squared)

= o*50 + 0.5 *50(squared)

= 0 + 0.5*2500

=1250 m

My problem with this question comes in when after the values have been substituated.
= o*50 + 0.5 *50(squared), I am kinda new to the mathematical side of physics but shouldn't the acceleration (2.5) have been substituated in as well to make it
= o*50 + 0.5 *2.5 *50(squared) get an answer of 3125?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If
a=2.5 m/s²
t=50s
u=0
then
s = ut + ½at²
s = 0 + ½ x 2.5 x 50²
s = 3125m
 
Physicsy said:
S = ut + 1/2at(squared)
OK.

= o*50 + 0.5 *50(squared)
Oops!


My problem with this question comes in when after the values have been substituated.
= o*50 + 0.5 *50(squared), I am kinda new to the mathematical side of physics but shouldn't the acceleration (2.5) have been substituated in as well to make it
= o*50 + 0.5 *2.5 *50(squared) get an answer of 3125?
Of course. The webpage goofed in leaving out the acceleration. (It was obviously an oversight.) Send the author an email suggesting that he correct the page! He will appreciate the correction.

Good catch. :wink:
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top