Range of Projectile from Trebuchet

AI Thread Summary
A trebuchet was set up to predict the range of projectiles, specifically a golf ball, using a fixed counterweight and basic physics calculations. The expected range was calculated to be 6 meters, but the actual range achieved was slightly less than 5 meters. The discussion suggests that the discrepancy may not be due to drag, as golf balls are aerodynamic. It was proposed that launching at an angle less than 45 degrees might yield better results, and testing with a smooth, undimpled ball could also improve range. Experimentation with different projectiles and angles is recommended for more accurate predictions.
kingbabi
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
After having set up a trebuchet in my back yard, I decided it would be a fun excersise to predict the range of the projectiles launched. Now, I'm not nearly experienced enough at physics to take into account a hinger counterweight or a sling, so I removed those from the machine.Instead I used a fixed counterweight (8 kg of barbell weights attached to a 0.5 kg bolt) on the short arm and a small cup on the long arm, using a golf ball as a projectile. I set up some calculations (essentially setting initial PE equal to the final KE) to determine the velocity and range of the golf ball. The numbers seem to be perfect for the velocity (I used a high-speed camera and a grid to verify this) at 7 m/s, but it is the range that is inaccurate. I'm launching at 45 degrees from a height of 1.3 meters, which, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_of_a_projectile" should give me a range of 6 meters. In practice, I'm getting slightly less than 5. I assume the drag isn't much of an issue, so what would you wager is causing the discrepancy? Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

kingbabi said:
… the golf ball …

I assume the drag isn't much of an issue …

Hi kingbabi! Welcome to PF! :smile:

Golf-balls are very aerodynamic, with their little dimples. :wink:

The maximum range when hitting a golf-ball is at an angle a lot less than 45º, isn't it?

Have you tried it with an ordinary (undimpled) ball? :smile:
 


tiny-tim said:
Hi kingbabi! Welcome to PF! :smile:

Golf-balls are very aerodynamic, with their little dimples. :wink:

The maximum range when hitting a golf-ball is at an angle a lot less than 45º, isn't it?

Have you tried it with an ordinary (undimpled) ball? :smile:

Thanks for the welcome! I suppose I should try it with a similarly weighted but smooth ball; I could see that having a positive effect.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top