Projectile motion and SUVAT equations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of SUVAT equations in solving a projectile motion problem where the angle of elevation is not provided. Participants explore the validity of using the SUVAT equation versus the conservation of energy principle to determine the vertical distance traveled.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant attempts to use the SUVAT equation v² = u² + 2as to find the vertical distance H, substituting s with H and a with -9.8, and arrives at a correct answer.
  • Another participant argues that the SUVAT equation requires justification since it is intended for motion along a line, implying that the vertical component of speed should be used.
  • A third participant clarifies that the equation can be justified by separating the vertical and horizontal components of motion, leading to the conclusion that conservation of energy also yields the same result.
  • One participant reflects on their past experience with similar questions, noting that they had previously used the SUVAT equation without understanding why it worked, and expresses confusion over the mark scheme's rejection of this method despite arriving at the correct value for H.
  • Participants discuss the preference for the conservation of energy approach, with one expressing regret for not using it initially, suggesting it is a more straightforward method.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the appropriateness of using the SUVAT equation in this context. There are differing views on the justification required for its use, and while some find it acceptable, others emphasize the need for caution in its application.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations of the mark scheme in addressing the justification for using the SUVAT equation and the potential for ambiguity in marking methods not explicitly outlined in the scheme.

mathsman
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Attempting a projectile motion question where initial and final speed is given but angle of elevation isn't. Need to find an equation for the vertical distance H travelled. I got the right answer using v^2 = u^2 + 2as substituting s=H and a=-9.8.

However the mark scheme states that this SUVAT equation can't be used as this equation needs the vertical component of speed (as gravity only acts vertically) . The correct answer was to use conservation of energy principle ie initial KE = final KE + GPE. However if I use this energy equation I get the following: 1/2 mu^2 = 1/2 m v^2 - 2gH . Multiplying throughout by 2 and re-arranging this gives v^2 = u^2 + 2as ! In other words the conservation of energy equation gives me the SUVAT equation which I'm not supposed to use! Where is the mistake??
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Not really a mistake. It's that you haven't justified your use of the SUVAT formula. It does turn out to work fine in this case, but it's intended use is for motion along a line so the velocities are supposed to be the components along that line.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mathsman
This is justified: ##v_y^2 = u_y^2 + 2as_y##

But since ##v_x = u_x##, you can add ##v_x^2 = u_x^2## to both sides, giving ##v^2 = u^2 + 2as_y##.

But conservation of energy gives it to you immediately.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mathsman
Many thanks to you both. I think I may have done a similar question many years ago and remember using the standard v2=u2+2as equation but couldn't remember why it worked ! Obviously adding the square of the horizontal component to both sides makes it clear why it does in fact work. The mark scheme simply gave no marks for using SUVAT so although my calculated value for h was correct I lost method marks. Presumably if I had 'justified' why I could use it that would be ok (although I'm never sure how far examiners give marks for methods that aren't in the mark scheme!.

Having said that the conservation of energy approach is much neater anyway (dont know why I overlooked it! - normally exam questions hint at using conservation of energy principle but this time it ddn't!
 

Similar threads

Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
3K