No problem! It's a small but important distinction to make. Glad I could help.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the analysis of the height function of an object moving vertically, represented by the equation s = -16t² + 96t + 112. The object's velocity at t=0 is correctly calculated as 96 ft/s. The maximum height occurs at t=3 seconds, yielding a maximum height of 256 ft. The discussion also clarifies the correct interpretation of terms such as "anti-derivative," emphasizing the distinction between the original function and its derivative.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of calculus concepts, specifically derivatives and anti-derivatives.
  • Familiarity with quadratic equations and their properties.
  • Knowledge of motion equations in physics, particularly vertical motion under gravity.
  • Ability to solve polynomial equations and factorization techniques.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of derivatives in calculus, focusing on their application in motion analysis.
  • Learn about maximum and minimum values of functions using calculus techniques.
  • Explore the relationship between position, velocity, and acceleration in physics.
  • Review quadratic functions and their graphical representations to understand motion trajectories.
USEFUL FOR

Students studying calculus and physics, educators teaching motion dynamics, and anyone interested in the mathematical modeling of vertical motion.

zeldajae
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The height of an object moving vertically is given by
s = -16t2 + 96t + 112,
when s in ft and t in sec.
a. Find the object's velocity when t=0
b. Find its maximum height and when it occurs.
c. Find its velocity when s=0

The Attempt at a Solution



a.
Now I know to find the objects velocity, take the derivative, which is:

v(t) = s' = -32t + 96.
when t=0, the objects velocity is 96 m/s

b.
This is when I got stuck. When the velocity is 96 m/s, what is its maximum height. I am guessing set the derivative's velocity equal to 0, and solve for t. and plug the value of t in the anti derivative equation, and you would get the maximum height, is the correct? Because whenever the derivative is zero, the anti derivative would either be a max or min, in this case, a max.

0 = -32t + 96
t = 3 sec

s = -16t2 + 96t + 112 plug t= 3 in this equation and you will get,
s = 256 ft?

c.

With the assumptions that my work is so far correct, this is what I would do. set the anti derivative equal to zero and solve for t, using factorization.

0 = -16t2 + 96t + 112
0 = -16(t2 -6t - 7)
0 = -16(t + 1)(t - 7)
t = -1, t = 7, because those are the values when the height is zero.

I would plug those values into the derivative to find the velocity at that point.

v(-1) = 128 m/s
v(7) = -128 m/s

Is all my work correct? Or did I made some mathematical or logical errors?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your answers are correct, except you used the wrong units in a).
Also in b, you say "When the velocity is 96 m/s, what is its maximum height.". That statement is nonsense, and you don't need it. The 96 m/s was about a specific time instance (t = 0), now we're talking about a different time instance (namely, t for which v is maximal) which you find by setting s' = 0.

Finally, I want to make a remark - perhaps a bit picky - about your use of the word "anti derivative". Personally, I would call s "the (distance / given / original) function", and v its derivative. If v was given, I would call that the given/original function and refer to s as the anti-derivative. Now when you say "anti-derivative" it may mean that you are looking at a function f, such that the derivative f' = s (and f'' = s' = v).
 
CompuChip said:
Your answers are correct, except you used the wrong units in a).
Also in b, you say "When the velocity is 96 m/s, what is its maximum height.". That statement is nonsense, and you don't need it. The 96 m/s was about a specific time instance (t = 0), now we're talking about a different time instance (namely, t for which v is maximal) which you find by setting s' = 0.

Finally, I want to make a remark - perhaps a bit picky - about your use of the word "anti derivative". Personally, I would call s "the (distance / given / original) function", and v its derivative. If v was given, I would call that the given/original function and refer to s as the anti-derivative. Now when you say "anti-derivative" it may mean that you are looking at a function f, such that the derivative f' = s (and f'' = s' = v).


Thank you so much.

And it was interesting how I never thought about the anti-derivative, like what it may mean when not used appropriately, thank you.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
9K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K