Projectile Motion - vertical displacement at specific time.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the height of a kicked football at a specific distance using projectile motion equations. The kicker sets the ball 30 yards away and kicks it at a 45-degree angle with a speed of 27 m/s. Initial calculations yield a height of 17.1 m, which does not match the book's answer of 17.7 m. Participants suggest that discrepancies may arise from unit conversions and rounding errors, recommending recalculating with different units to achieve a closer result. The conversation emphasizes the importance of maintaining precision in calculations to minimize error accumulation in multi-step problems.
wheels94
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A kicker wishes to kick a field goal, so he sets the ball on the ground 30 yards (27m) from the goal. Assuming he kicks the ball at an angle of 45 degrees and a speed of 27m/s, what is the height of the ball above the ground when it goes over the crossbar.

Known:
R = 27m
Vo = 27ms
theta = 45

Unknown:
t:
Vox:
Voy:
Sy:

Homework Equations


Vox = Vo *cos(theta)
Voy = Vo *sin(theta)
R = Vox*t
Sy = Voy*t+.5*a*(t)^2

The Attempt at a Solution



Step 1: Find Vox:

Vox = Vo *cos(theta)
Vox = 27 *cos(45)
Vox = 19.1m/s

Step 2: Find t:

R = Vox*t
27 = 19.1*t
t = 27/19.1
t = 1.4s

Step 3: Find Voy:

Voy = Vo *sin(theta)
Voy = 27 *sin(45)
Voy = 19.1m/s

Step 4: Find Sy:

Sy = Voy*t+.5*a*(t)^2
Sy = 19.1*1.4 + .5(-9.8)(1.4)^2
Sy = 26.7-9.6
Sy = 17.1m

However, this is not the answer in the back of this book (Practice Makes Perfect Physics by Connie J Wells). The answers given are t=1.4s and h (which I've so far assumed is Sy)= 17.7m

I've only recently started brushing up on my physics over the last year as prep for University, so I'm fully expecting there to be an error here somewhere, but I've already come across one error in this book, is this possibly another one?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your method and calculations look fine. The dual units specified for the distance leads me to suspect that the author originally did the problem in one set of units and simply converted a few values to make it "politically correct" for a metric audience; That's just sloppy and lazy in my opinion.

Redo your calculations with the distance being 30 yards, the speed 90 ft/sec and the acceleration due to gravity 32 ft/sec2. The resulting height calculation should convert very closely to 17.7 m.
 
gneill said:
Your method and calculations look fine. The dual units specified for the distance leads me to suspect that the author originally did the problem in one set of units and simply converted a few values to make it "politically correct" for a metric audience; That's just sloppy and lazy in my opinion.

Redo your calculations with the distance being 30 yards, the speed 90 ft/sec and the acceleration due to gravity 32 ft/sec2. The resulting height calculation should convert very closely to 17.7 m.

Comes out at 17.6m, which seems to be as close as I'll be getting on this one. Annoying that the book has some screwy answers, but as long as it's teaching me the correct method it's still a win. Thanks a lot for the help! :)
 
Hi @wheels94,
There is another useful lesson or two here.
Because of the angle and numbers chosen, the final step in the height calculation is numerically sx-g. The conversions provided have a 2% error (should be 27.5, not 27). The conversion used for g (32.2 to 9.8) is rather more accurate. The subtraction is between two numbers in approximately the ratio 3:1, so the 2% error becomes a 3% error.
In your own calculation you found time and rounded it to 1.4 s, a 1% error, and used that in the next calculation. This led to an error accumulation, which again was magnified by the subtraction step.
In multistage calculations, it is better to keep everything algebraic through the transition. I.e, don't use the 1.4 as input to the next stage, just use the algebraic expression it came from. Often you will find there is cancellation (there certainly is here).
If you have to carry a numeric value through, preserve more digits than you quote for the intermediate answer. So here, you would answer the first part as 1.4 s, but use 1.414 as input to the next part.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Calculation of Tensile Forces in Piston-Type Water-Lifting Devices at Elevated Locations'
Figure 1 Overall Structure Diagram Figure 2: Top view of the piston when it is cylindrical A circular opening is created at a height of 5 meters above the water surface. Inside this opening is a sleeve-type piston with a cross-sectional area of 1 square meter. The piston is pulled to the right at a constant speed. The pulling force is(Figure 2): F = ρshg = 1000 × 1 × 5 × 10 = 50,000 N. Figure 3: Modifying the structure to incorporate a fixed internal piston When I modify the piston...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top