Physics: Comparing Stone Drops from 100m Building

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Hardik Batra
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Building Physics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the physics of dropping two stones of different masses from a height of 100 meters, specifically focusing on the distance they would cover after 5 seconds. The conversation touches on concepts of gravitational acceleration, air resistance, and the implications of mass on falling objects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the mass of the stones does not affect the rate at which they fall, citing Newtonian mechanics and the principle that all objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum.
  • One participant calculates the distance fallen using the equation for distance under constant acceleration, arriving at approximately 122.625 meters after 5 seconds, assuming no air resistance.
  • Another participant challenges the idea that both stones will cover the same distance, suggesting that in practice, the heavier stone may cover more distance due to air friction.
  • Some participants note that air resistance depends on the characteristics of the stones, including their shape and density, which could affect their falling behavior in a real-world scenario.
  • A participant references an experiment where a feather and a hammer dropped in a vacuum fall at the same rate, illustrating the concept that without air resistance, mass does not influence falling speed.
  • There is a discussion about the importance of considering various effects one at a time to understand the physics involved, particularly when introducing additional variables like air resistance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the impact of mass and air resistance on the distance fallen by the stones. While some agree that in a vacuum both stones would fall the same distance, others argue that practical considerations, such as air resistance, lead to different outcomes. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the practical implications of these factors.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the need to account for air friction and the characteristics of the stones, indicating that the discussion is limited by these assumptions and the complexity of real-world conditions.

Hardik Batra
Messages
130
Reaction score
5
I have one doubt in physics...
If two stones(one stone is having 10 kg mass and other one is having 5 kg)are drop down from the 100 m building. After 5 second, how much distance they will cover ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


The mass of the stones does not affect the rate at which they fall. This was one of the idealogical breakthroughs of Newtonian mechanics. The acceleration any object feels from the gravitational pull of the Earth is only dependent on the mass of the Earth, and not on the mass of the body being pulled - meaning everything gets pulled at the same rate.

Because of this, the two stones would fall the exact same distance in 5 seconds. The distance is determined by the equation ##(Distance \ Fell) = \frac{1}{2} \cdot (Acceleration \ Due \ to \ Earth) \cdot (Time \ Elapsed)^2##.

We use ##g## to represent the acceleration due to Earth at the surface of the Earth so this equation simplifies to ##D = \frac{1}{2} \cdot g \cdot t^2##.
##g## is equal to about 10 (in the units we are using here), so the distance traveled is roughly ##\frac{1}{2} \cdot 10 \cdot 25 = 125 \ meters##.

The important thing to take away is that the acceleration a body feels in a gravitational feel is only dependent on the mass of the thing pulling the body, not on the mass of the thing being pulled.
 
Last edited:


Hardik Batra said:
I have one doubt in physics...
If two stones(one stone is having 10 kg mass and other one is having 5 kg)are drop down from the 100 m building. After 5 second, how much distance they will cover ?

If the air friction is ignored both of them will have the same acceleration. If the building is on the Earth the acceleration is approximately 9.81 m/(s^2).

If the initial velocities are zero the distance can be calculated by the equation:

x = (1/2).a.t^2

x = 0.5 x 9.81 x 5^2

x = 122.625 m

However as the height of the building is 100 m both of them will travel 100 m. At the end both of them will be on the ground.

If the air friction is not ignored, the shape of the stones and the density of the air are required to calculate the distance.
 
Last edited:


Your mean to say both will cover same distance..

But By practically 10 kg stone will cover more distance than 5 kg.

What to understand in this?
 


Practically, there is a small difference due to air friction as Zalajbeg said. The 'slowing' force which air imparts onto a falling object does depend on the characteristics of the object itself - including it's mass (density would be a better term).

But, in a vacuum, there is no air resistance, and therefore two objects of different weights (even drastically different weights) will fall the exact same distance.

A lovely example of this is the following clip where a feather and a hammer are dropped in the airless environment of the moon and they fall at the exact same rate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Hardik Batra said:
Your mean to say both will cover same distance..

But By practically 10 kg stone will cover more distance than 5 kg.

What to understand in this?

One stone may not have the same density as another stone. This is another factor if air resistance is to be taken into account - because the volumes of the stones or their cross sectional areas are what count.
The essence of getting to grips with Physics is to consider, whenever possible, the various effects one at a time. There are many examples where it becomes impossible to discuss some of the simplest phenomena when you add more and more extra variables into the model. Once each effect has been understood on its own then it's possible to combine them into a 'real' practical situation.
 


Here is a fun and classic piece of experimental evidence;

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K