Kinematics - Calculating Distance

  • Thread starter Thread starter Insolite
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kinematics
AI Thread Summary
A man falls from a building, covering a distance of h, with the last quarter of his fall taking 0.800 seconds. The initial calculations led to confusion due to incorrect assumptions about the relationship between time and distance traveled under constant acceleration. By correctly applying kinematic equations, the time to fall the first three-quarters of the height was expressed in terms of h, leading to a quadratic equation. Solving this equation yielded a height of approximately 175 meters for the building. The discussion emphasizes the importance of accurately relating time and distance in free-fall scenarios.
Insolite
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Question: "A man steps from the top of a tall building. He falls freely from rest to the ground, a distance of h. He falls a distance of h/4 in the last 0.800 s of his fall. Neglecting air resistance, calculate the height h of the building.

I've attempted the solution in a number of different ways, each of which give different answers.

Solution:
I have labelled the initial time (i.e. at the instant before he begins to fall) as ##t_{0}##, the time at which he has traveled ##\frac{3}{4}## of the total distance h as ##t_{1}## and the time at which he has traveled the full height h as ##t_{2}##.

Using the equation ##x = x_{0} + v_{0}t + \frac{1}{2}a_{x}t^{2}##, where ##x = h##, ##t = t_{2}## and ##a_{x} = g##.
##x_{0} = 0## as no distance has been traveled whilst the man is still at the top of the building
##v_{0}t = 0## as the initial velocity at the top of the building is zero

Therefore -

## h = h_{0} + v_{0}t_{2} + \frac{1}{2}gt_{2}^{2}##
## h = 0 + 0 + \frac{1}{2}gt_{2}^{2}##
## h = \frac{1}{2}gt_{2}^{2}##

Re-arranging to give -

##t_{2} = \sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}}##

##(t_{2} - t_{1})## = the time to travel ##\frac{1}{4}h = 0.800 s##
##(t_{1})## = the time to travel ##\frac{3}{4}h = \sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}} - 0.800 s##

Substituting the value of ##t_{2}## for ##h## in the latter of these equations gives -

##\frac{3}{4}\sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}} = \sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}} - 0.800 s##
Therefore 0.800 must be equivalent to ##\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}}##
##0.800 = \frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}}##
##3.20 = \sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}}##
##h = \frac{3.20^{2}g}{2}##
##h = 50.2 m##

I believe that my mistake is in assuming that ##(t_{1}) = \sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}} - 0.800 s## is equivalent to ##\frac{3}{4}h\sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}}##, as the man's velocity increases with constant acceleration and therefore ##\frac{3}{4}## of ##t_{2}## does not correspond to having traveled ##\frac{3}{4}h##.

However, I'm uncertain how else to approach the problem. I have tried other methods involving heavier use of the equations of motion with constant acceleration and have twice calculated h as ≈ 12 m, but this would not be a tall building! (I realize that the actual answer does not always have to accurately reflect the real-world scenario described in the question, but I believe I should use it as guidance in evaluating my answer.)

Any help and/or advice would be greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Insolite said:
I believe that my mistake is in assuming that ##(t_{1}) = \sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}} - 0.800 s## is equivalent to ##\frac{3}{4}h\sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}}##, as the man's velocity increases with constant acceleration and therefore ##\frac{3}{4}## of ##t_{2}## does not correspond to having traveled ##\frac{3}{4}h##.

Yes, exactly. Up to the point of this assumption everything was correct. And you even know the reason. solve for ##t_{1}## just like you solved for ##t_{2}## but this time take the height to be ##\frac{3}{4}h##. Now, substitute this value and solve. You'll arrive at the answer.

P.S. : ##t_{1}=\sqrt{\frac{3h}{2g}}##
 
Hi, thankyou for your response.

I had approached the problem this way previously, but for some reason or another I discarded it.
I have tried to run it through and have calculated what I think is a reasonable answer -

##t_{2} = \sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}}##
##t_{1} = \sqrt{\frac{3h}{2g}}## (derived from the equation of motion used previously using ##\frac{3}{4}h## as ##x##)
##(t_{2} - t_{1}) = 0.800 s##
##t_{2} - (t_{2} - t_{1}) = t_{1}##
##\sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}} - 0.800 s = \sqrt{\frac{3h}{2g}}##
##{\left(\sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}} - 0.800 s\right)}^2 = {\left(\sqrt{\frac{3h}{2g}}\right)}^2##
## \frac{2h}{g} - 1.6\sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}} + 0.64 = \frac{3h}{2g}##
##\frac{h}{2g} - 1.6\sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}} + 0.64 = 0##

Solving the quadratic equation using the following substitutions -

##u = \sqrt{2h}## and ##u^{2} = 2h##
##\frac{1}{4g}u^{2} - \frac{1.6}{\sqrt{g}}u + 0.64 = 0##

Using the quadratic formula -
##x = -\frac{b\pm\sqrt{b^{2}-4ac}}{2a}##

##u \approx 18.7026##
##u \approx 1.3429##
##u = \pm\sqrt{2h}##
##h = 175 m##

I hope I haven't made any errors, please correct me where appropriate. I realize that I should try to keep the value of u as an exact number for use in further calculation, but I kept making mistakes when trying to input values in my calculator and found it easiest to right down the values of a, b and c to high precision for use in the formula, as the final answer is required to only three significant figures.

Thanks again for your input :smile:
 
Insolite said:
Hi, thankyou for your response.

I had approached the problem this way previously, but for some reason or another I discarded it.
I have tried to run it through and have calculated what I think is a reasonable answer -

##t_{2} = \sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}}##
##t_{1} = \sqrt{\frac{3h}{2g}}## (derived from the equation of motion used previously using ##\frac{3}{4}h## as ##x##)
##(t_{2} - t_{1}) = 0.800 s##
##t_{2} - (t_{2} - t_{1}) = t_{1}##
##\sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}} - 0.800 s = \sqrt{\frac{3h}{2g}}##
##{\left(\sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}} - 0.800 s\right)}^2 = {\left(\sqrt{\frac{3h}{2g}}\right)}^2##
## \frac{2h}{g} - 1.6\sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}} + 0.64 = \frac{3h}{2g}##
##\frac{h}{2g} - 1.6\sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}} + 0.64 = 0##

Solving the quadratic equation using the following substitutions -

##u = \sqrt{2h}## and ##u^{2} = 2h##
##\frac{1}{4g}u^{2} - \frac{1.6}{\sqrt{g}}u + 0.64 = 0##

Using the quadratic formula -
##x = -\frac{b\pm\sqrt{b^{2}-4ac}}{2a}##

##u \approx 18.7026##
##u \approx 1.3429##
##u = \pm\sqrt{2h}##
##h = 175 m##

I hope I haven't made any errors, please correct me where appropriate. I realize that I should try to keep the value of u as an exact number for use in further calculation, but I kept making mistakes when trying to input values in my calculator and found it easiest to right down the values of a, b and c to high precision for use in the formula, as the final answer is required to only three significant figures.

Thanks again for your input :smile:

Yes, its correct. And you have managed to separate out the real solution from the unreal one.

P.S. : Separating the roots is done by checking the values in the original equation involving ##t_{1}## and ##t_{2}##
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top