Jump Efficiency TheoryI am young so please no mocking.

AI Thread Summary
Jump Efficiency Theory proposes a method to evaluate the effectiveness of a jump based on height, velocity, and distance, specifically for long jump events. The formula presented calculates efficiency as (Velocity * Height) / Distance, indicating that a jump is efficient if the result is greater than one. However, critiques highlight that this formula lacks dimensional consistency and does not accurately reflect the physics of jumping. Instead, established formulas like the range formula for projectile motion are suggested for calculating jump distances under ideal conditions. Overall, while the theory is an interesting attempt at understanding jump dynamics, it requires refinement and alignment with established physics principles.
Karimspencer
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
"Jump Efficiency Theory". I am young so please no mocking.

This is a theory i have created that judges how efficient a jump is with respect to a specific distance. This theory is going to be used mainly for the Long Jump sport. For example let's say you have to jump across a whole with a distance of 15m. And you jump with a height of 10m and a velocity of 1m/s. Now to know if your going to jump across the whole , you are going to have to calculate how efficient your jump is with respect to this distance of 15m. Now efficiency = (V*h)/d(Velocity * Height / distance) = (10*1)/15=0.666666

I came up with the equation because usually when you want succeed in jumping over a specific distance , you are going to have to jump with a very high height and with a very high speed.

Now if the efficiency of the jump is less than 1 , then your jump isn't efficient and you aren't going to pass through that specific distance but if it's higher than 1 , you will succeed.

Now remember , this is only a theory and i am only a 13-year-old boy with a passion for physics so it's probably wrong.What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


That makes absolutely no sense. What you want is the range formula.

d=\frac{v^2}{g}sin(2\theta)

Here, v is your velocity, g is acceleration due to gravity, and θ is the angle of the jump. Note that optimal angle is θ=45°, at which sin(2θ)=1. Because its easier to build up horizontal speed than vertical for the long jump, the realistic angles tend to be shallower.

Suppose you wanted to jump 15m under ideal conditions. Let's take 45° angle, and g=9.8m/s² corresponding to jump on Earth. You get v=12m/s, or 27 miles per hour. That's a bit faster than a human can run. And in fact, that distance is significantly higher than a long jump world record, which is a little under 9m.
 


12m/s is quite close to the peak velocity of 100m-runners. If they would get some sort of ramp, they might be able to jump ~15m wide.
 


Oh ok.
 


Some thoughts you might find useful in future.
Your expression v.h/d cannot be right for a couple of reasons that should be easy to see. Dimensionally it is (L/T).L/L = L/T. That is, the net dimension is that of a speed. For an efficiency coefficient you would need it to be dimensionless.
Secondly, a large d for a given h and v would surely be highly efficient, but your expression would give it low efficiency.
Using K^2's formula, a suitable efficiency measure E would be (d.g)/(v.v), but it is more convenient for you to have this in terms of d and h.
Writing t for tan(theta) we have:
E = (d.g)/(v.v) = sin(2 theta) = 2.t/(1+t.t).
t = 2h/d.
E = 4h.d/(d.d+4h.h)
 
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...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
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