Kmol6 said:
ok, If I use v^2 = vo^2 = 2a (x-x0) I think this is the one you're thinking of? ( a lot less work :P)
10.4^2=2(9.8)x
x=5.52m which is close, but still not exact even with rounding?
or I use
conservation of energy and I get
1/2(.029)(510)=1/2(1.42)(10.4)^2 + (1.42)(9.8)h
x= 4.98 m
You can't use conservation of energy for the whole problem, because you have an inelastic collision where energy is not conserved. You could, however, use conservation of energy for the upward motion after the bullet is embedded in the block.
One of the problems you have is that you follow the "plug the numbers in as soon as possible" method. And, by his method, you lose sight of what is happening. Also, you are then prone to exaggerated rounding errors.
You could try to solve the problem in two steps:
1) First show that ##v = (\frac{m}{m+M})u##
Where ##u## is the speed of the bullet, ##m## the mass of the bullet and ##M## the mass of the block and ##v## is the speed of the block and bullet after impact.
2) Then you could show that ##h = \frac{v^2}{2g}##. where ##h## is the height reached by the block and bullet (or by anything) shot upwards with speed ##v##.
3) Then you could put the two together to get:
##h = (\frac{m}{m+M})^2 \frac{u^2}{2g}##
Now you have only one calculation to do and no intermediate rounding.
The advantages of this approach are many. Not least, you may begin to see that you are often solving the same physics problems over and over again, only with different numbers each time.
For example, ##\frac{m}{m+M}## comes up all the time in physics and you get to recognise it. But, if you just plug in the numbers, you get different numbers each time and you take very little learning from this problem into the next.
Finally, if the speed of the bullet was actually ##550m/s## then you'd have to do the whole problem over again from the start. Whereas, I could just repeat the last calculation using the formula for ##h##, knowing that is valid for any bullet and block with any mass and any speed.