Projectile Motion: Minimum Speed for Clearing an Edge

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves projectile motion, specifically calculating the minimum speed required for a hammer to clear the edge of a hole. The scenario includes a construction worker tossing a hammer from a depth of 2.6m at an angle of 35 degrees, with the hammer needing to travel a horizontal distance of 3.1m to clear the edge.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the setup of equations of motion, questioning the validity of the formulas used and the assumptions made regarding angles and signs in calculations. There are attempts to derive the necessary speed using different approaches and substitutions into the equations.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various participants providing insights and suggestions for checking calculations. Some participants express frustration over discrepancies between their results and the book's stated answer of 11m/s, while others confirm the book's answer, indicating that errors may lie in the calculations or assumptions made.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted confusion regarding the sign of gravitational acceleration and its application in the equations. Participants are also exploring the implications of different interpretations of the problem setup, including the angle of projection and the coordinates used in calculations.

negation
Messages
817
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A construction worker stands in a 2.6m deep hole, 3.1m from the edge of the hole. He tosses the hammer to a person outside the hole. If the hammer leaves his hand 1m above the bottom of the hole at an angle of 35, what is the minimum speed needed to clear the edge.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



Capture.JPG


Why does the book states the answer = 11m/s?

This is really frustrating!
I am getting 7.8...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Draw a sketch of the problem. This may help you setting up the equations of motion. You should be able to determine the book's solution.

BTW, you can't arbitrarily ignore the negative sign under the square root.
 
35° relative to the horizontal?
Where does your formula come from? It gives a wrong result.

@SteamKing: the sign is fine, the subtraction in the denominator cancels it.
 
SteamKing said:
Draw a sketch of the problem. This may help you setting up the equations of motion. You should be able to determine the book's solution.

BTW, you can't arbitrarily ignore the negative sign under the square root.

The book has given the sketch.

In fact, the book has given the equation(in symbolic expression) and stated the answer is 11m/s but upon substituting the x and y coordinatate of 3.1m and 1.6m respectively, I don't arrive at 11m/s.
The book has given a sketch too.
 
mfb said:
35° relative to the horizontal?
Where does your formula come from? It gives a wrong result.

@steamking: The sign is fine, the subtraction in the denominator cancels it.

Capture.JPG
 
mfb said:
35° relative to the horizontal?
Where does your formula come from? It gives a wrong result.

@SteamKing: the sign is fine, the subtraction in the denominator cancels it.

It comes from t = x/vi cos theta

y = vi sin theta . t - 0.5g t^2

sub t into y-coordinate to get y as a function of x-coordinate.
Once the equation is derived, sub x= 3.1 and y = 1.6
but it doesn't give me 11m/s if I express it in terms of vi
 
I can confirm the book's answer. You did something wrong at solving the equation for the velocity.
 
mfb said:
35° relative to the horizontal?
Where does your formula come from? It gives a wrong result.

@SteamKing: the sign is fine, the subtraction in the denominator cancels it.

I suggest you check your calculations again.

(3.1 tan 35) - 1.6 > 0
 
Oh sorry, for some reason I squared the tan instead of the cos.
 
  • #10
SteamKing said:
I suggest you check your calculations again.

(3.1 tan 35) - 1.6 > 0

Still not getting the answer.

I basically run the calculation of the workings in my OP but it doesn't turn up to be 11m/s
 
  • #11
The approach of post #6 is right, the formula in post #1 is not. If you need help to find your error, show the steps you made in between.
 
  • #12
mfb said:
The approach of post #6 is right, the formula in post #1 is not. If you need help to find your error, show the steps you made in between.

Post 1 is nothing more than a mathematical expression of post 6.

I'm sure post 1 is right. I think the issue might be that on my calculator I did (2cos35)^2 instead of 2cos(35)^2
 
  • #13
I'm getting 10.036m/s
 
  • #14
x = vcos(theta).t
y = vsin(theta).t - 0.5gt^2

t = x/(vcos(theta))

y = vsin(theta)[(x)/vcos(theta)] - 0.5g[(x)/vcos(theta)]^2

y = xtan(theta) - [(g)/(2v^2 (cos(35)^2))

v = SQRT[(gx^2)/(2cos(theta)^2(xtan(theta)-y))

Sub x = 3.1 and y = 1.6
g = -9.8

It's giving me 10m/s and not 11m/s
 
  • #15
You are using the wrong sign for g. Use a negative sign in the equation for y=... or for g itself, but not both, otherwise you are accelerating upwards.

That cannot be the only error (check -> 12.5), but I don't see the error right now.
 
  • #16
mfb said:
You are using the wrong sign for g. Use a negative sign in the equation for y=... or for g itself, but not both, otherwise you are accelerating upwards.

That cannot be the only error (check -> 12.5), but I don't see the error right now.


I don't see any other error aside from the negative g that I use. And why shouldn't g be negative? It has always been negative according to convention
 
  • #17
mfb said:
You are using the wrong sign for g. Use a negative sign in the equation for y=... or for g itself, but not both, otherwise you are accelerating upwards.

That cannot be the only error (check -> 12.5), but I don't see the error right now.


Besides, you're not getting 11m/s too. The link from you shows wolfram getting 12m/s+
 
  • #18
mfb said:
You are using the wrong sign for g. Use a negative sign in the equation for y=... or for g itself, but not both, otherwise you are accelerating upwards.

That cannot be the only error (check -> 12.5), but I don't see the error right now.


Check the jpg in my op. -9.8 in the working indicates a negative g.
 
  • #19
I have found v to be 11m/s.

To find where the hammer lands:

Capture.JPG


This is a very juvenile question to ask but is the a, b and c values correct?
Solving via quadratic, I'm not getting x= 3.1 or x = 8.7.
It's a very simple problem but this question is taking me more than 1 day to solve!
 
  • #20
negation said:
I don't see any other error aside from the negative g that I use. And why shouldn't g be negative? It has always been negative according to convention
Okay, but if g is negative (so y is pointing upwards), the equation of motion is ##y=v_y t + \frac{1}{2} g t^2## and not minus.

Besides, you're not getting 11m/s too. The link from you shows wolfram getting 12m/s+
That's why I said "this cannot be the only error". Check the WolframAlpha link in post 7, 11m/s is right.

What do you get for x with the reverse attempt? Keep in mind that 11m/s is not the exact value.
 
  • #21
mfb said:
Okay, but if g is negative (so y is pointing upwards), the equation of motion is ##y=v_y t + \frac{1}{2} g t^2## and not minus.

That's why I said "this cannot be the only error". Check the WolframAlpha link in post 7, 11m/s is right.

What do you get for x with the reverse attempt? Keep in mind that 11m/s is not the exact value.

I have gotten 11m/s
 
  • #22
mfb said:
Okay, but if g is negative (so y is pointing upwards), the equation of motion is ##y=v_y t + \frac{1}{2} g t^2## and not minus.

That's why I said "this cannot be the only error". Check the WolframAlpha link in post 7, 11m/s is right.

What do you get for x with the reverse attempt? Keep in mind that 11m/s is not the exact value.


Capture.JPG


I have found v to be 11m/s.

To find where the hammer lands:


This is a very juvenile question to ask but is the a, b and c values correct?
Solving via quadratic, I'm not getting x= 3.1 or x = 8.7 but these 2 values are what the book states.
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K