1. PF Contest - Win "Conquering the Physics GRE" book! Click Here to Enter
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Projectile Motion: two positive times?

  1. Sep 10, 2010 #1
    I explained to my class that in projectile motion one always chooses the positive time answer with the negative time answer being dropped. Then a student asked if two positive time answers were possible. I just looked at it assuming that t+/- are both positive and got the result that for t+ to be positive, then

    yf > yi.​

    But for t- to be positive (for the same problem)

    yi > yf.​

    I believe this is a contradiction and so the answer to the student's question is 'no' - two positive time answers, in the same problem, are not possible. I need confirmation of this before I give the answer to the class.

    Thanks in advance for any help you may give me.

  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 10, 2010 #2

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't understand the context. Why can't you have a projectile motion question with two answers, both at positive times? Throw a ball in the air. At what time(s) will it be 10 ft above the ground?
  4. Sep 10, 2010 #3
    If the initial and final positions are fixed, then solving for the time of flight should yield only one positive time.

    yf = yi + voy*t - 4.9*t2

    The solution of this is the quadratic formula:

    [tex]t = \frac{-v_{oy} \pm \sqrt{v_{oy}^{2} + 19.6*\Delta y}}{-g}[/tex]​

    There are two answers: t+ and t-.

    For both to be positive, one sets up the inequality for each and deduces the result above, namely:

    For t+ > 0 this implies Dy > 0; and
    for t- > 0 this implies Dy < 0.

    Thus the contradiction.
  5. Sep 11, 2010 #4

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't understand how you are drawing this conclusion. If Yf > Yi, then both times will be positive if Vo is positive; If Yf < Yi, then one of the times will be negative.
  6. Sep 12, 2010 #5
    Using the quadratic solution for the time (link is to the above formula):

    https://www.physicsforums.com/latex_images/28/2874555-0.png [Broken]

    I set t+ > 0 and t_ > 0 and look for the necessary condition to ensure this.

    For t+ > 0, yf > yi, and

    for t_ > 0, yi > yf.

    But this was my original question, was my deduction correct?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  7. Sep 12, 2010 #6

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    How can your deduction be correct? You claim that you cannot have a case where you have two positive time solutions and I gave a trivial example that shows you can! Here's one with numbers: Throw a ball upward with initial velocity = +10 m/s. At what time(s) will it be 5 m above the starting position?

    Show the details of how you made your deductions--I suspect either a mathematical error or that I am misinterpreting the problem you are trying to solve.
  8. Sep 12, 2010 #7
    Ok, here goes...

    [tex]t_{+} = \frac{v_{oy}}{g} + \frac{\sqrt{v_{oy}^2 + 19.6\Delta y}}{g} > 0[/tex]

    Canceling the common denominator, g, and bringing the voy term to the other side then I get:

    [tex] \sqrt{v_{oy}^2 + 19.6\Delta y} > -v_{oy} [/tex]

    Squaring both sides I get:

    [tex] v_{oy}^2 + 19.6\Delta y > v_{oy}^2[/tex]

    Now the initial y-velocity component can be canceled, which yields:

    [tex] 19.6\Delta y > 0[/tex]

    Dividing out the constant factor of 19.6,

    [tex] \Delta y > 0[/tex]

    which yields the result for t+, namely:

    yf > yi.


    For t- the result is:

    [tex]t_{-} = \frac{v_{oy}}{g} - \frac{\sqrt{v_{oy}^2 + 19.6\Delta y}}{g} > 0[/tex]

    Canceling the common denominator, g, and bringing the square-root to the other side then I get:

    [tex] v_{oy} > - \sqrt{v_{oy}^2 + 19.6\Delta y}[/tex]

    Squaring both sides, and canceling the voy term leaves:

    [tex] 0 > 19.6\Delta y[/tex]

    Dividing out the constant factor of 19.6,

    [tex] 0 > \Delta y[/tex]

    which yields the result for t-, namely:

    yi > yf.


    I see something now I didn't see before - that in one attempt I moved the voy term, and in the other I moved the square-root term. Thus I obtained two different results. However, this isn't wrong, and your previous, intuitive, answer is correct.

    So what's going on here???

    Thanks for your help Doc Al.

  9. Sep 12, 2010 #8

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I see the problem. You made a sign error with respect to Δy:

    yf = yi + voy*t - 4.9*t2

    0 = -Δy + voy*t - 4.9*t2

    Now apply the quadratic formula.
  10. Sep 12, 2010 #9
    That minus sign is common to both t+ and t-. The only thing that changes is that the results are switched. Thanks for that. But I still think that something is weird about the "square both sides of the inequality" step.

    Thanks for all your help.

  11. Sep 12, 2010 #10

    Andy Resnick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    It's definitely possible to have two positive times- for example, launch two projectiles at two angles, each equidistant from 45 degrees. Both projectiles will hit the target, but take 2 different paths (and 2 different times).

    Does that help?
  12. Sep 12, 2010 #11

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Good point. Putting the sign of Δy aside for the moment: Yes, the problem is where you square both sides. Not valid!


    2 > -3

    Square both sides:

    4 > 9 :yuck:

    Sorry about not spotting that earlier! :uhh:

    Starting with this:
    Clearly the inequality will be satisfied for any value of Δy that keeps the discriminant positive. (If it's not positive, there's no real solution.)
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Threads - Projectile Motion positive Date
B Need help with projectile motion problem Nov 2, 2017
B Equation For Trajectory May 17, 2017
B Finding length of an arc produced by projectile Feb 15, 2017
B Projectile vs Circular Motion Apr 29, 2016