Problem concerned to kinematics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mareena
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kinematics
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The problem involves a stone thrown vertically upwards from a bridge with an initial velocity of 20 m/s, which strikes the water after 3 seconds. The correct height of the bridge is 5 meters, as confirmed by the solution key. The calculations indicate that the stone takes 2 seconds to reach its maximum height and an additional 2 seconds to return to the bridge, totaling 4 seconds. The discrepancy in time suggests an error in the problem statement, as the stone cannot reach the water in 3 seconds given the provided conditions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of kinematic equations, specifically vf^2 = 2aS + vi^2
  • Knowledge of free fall and projectile motion principles
  • Familiarity with gravitational acceleration (g = 9.80 m/s²)
  • Basic algebra for solving equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Review kinematic equations for vertical motion
  • Study the concept of maximum height in projectile motion
  • Learn about the effects of gravity on objects in free fall
  • Explore common errors in physics problem statements and how to identify them
USEFUL FOR

Students studying physics, educators teaching kinematics, and anyone interested in understanding projectile motion and its applications.

Mareena
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A body standing on a bridge throws a stone vertically upwards with a velocity of 20 m/s. it strikes the water below after 3 seconds, the height of the bridge over the water level in the river is :
a. 45 m
b. 10 m
c. 5 m
d. 15 m

Homework Equations



vf^2= 2aS + vi^2

The Attempt at a Solution


its ans mentioned in key is 5m, but i dnt undrstand how !
The time taken to reach max height (h) is given by..
v = u - gt .. where v = 0 m/s
t = u/g .. .. 20m/s / 9.80m/s² = 2s ..

So it takes 2x2s (4s) to return to the position it was thrown from (on the bridge) .. yet the question gives a time 3s to reach the water below the bridge.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're right. It makes no sense. (Must be an error in the problem statement.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K