1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Homework Help: Motion in two or three dimensions

  1. Aug 11, 2010 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    A projectile is being launched from ground level with no air resistance. You want to avoid having it enter a temperature inversion layer in the atmosphere a height h above the ground.(a) What is the maximum launch speed you could give this projectile if you shot it straight up?Express your answer in terms of h and g.

    2. Relevant equations
    According to me the equation that applies is h(t)=Yi+Vit-(1/2)gt2

    3. The attempt at a solution
    I'm lost in this problem I tried doing it as an optimization problem from Calc. I but it just didn't make sense. The other thing I did was solve for Vi in the above equation but it din't give me anything close to the answer in the book I got Vi=(h+4.905t2)/t and the answer in the back is (2gh)(1/2). Any help will be appreciated, Thanks.
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    2. Relevant equations

    3. The attempt at a solution
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 11, 2010 #2
    Think about it from a conservation of energy perspective, how does the initial kinetic energy relate to the maximum height?
  4. Aug 11, 2010 #3
    Ok I think I got it, can someone please let me know if this is right or not. This is what I did.

    1.(Eq.a)h=Vt-(1/2)gt^2 and from a previous equation found (Eq.b)t=(2h/g)^(1/2)

    2.From Eq.a V=[h+(1/2)gt^2]/t

    3.Plugging (b) into new (a) gives V=2h/(2h/g)^(1/2)

    4.Rationalizing gives V=[2h(2h/g)^(1/2)]/(2h/g)

    5.And after solving the division V=g*[(2h/g)^(1/2)]

    6.And by properties of exponents V=(2hg)^(1/2) which is the answer in the back of the book.

    Any comments will be appreciated in case I did something wrong, Thanks.
  5. Aug 11, 2010 #4
    Yeah, no, that looks right. But seriously you should really think about this in terms of conservation of energy. It will take 2 lines, max.
  6. Aug 11, 2010 #5
    Yeah I did it the other way and is way simpler using conservation of energy, oh well now I have two ways of doing it, thanks for the help.

    1. a)PE=mgh b)KE=(1/2)mv^2

    2. By conservation of energy PE=KE so mgh=(1/2)mv^2

    3. m divides out on both sides and you get gh=(1/2)v^2

    4. Therefore v=(2gh)^(1/2) which is what i got the other way but way shorter.

    I would have never thought about energy being related in this problem on my own thanks zhermes.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2010
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook