MHB Sopheary dara mao's question at Yahoo Answers regarding kinematics

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarkFL
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kinematics
AI Thread Summary
A stone thrown from a roof at 800 feet with an initial speed of 14 feet per second experiences a downward acceleration of -32 feet per second squared. After 2 seconds, the stone is calculated to be 764 feet above the ground. The time it takes for the stone to hit the ground is approximately 7.52 seconds, determined using the quadratic formula. Upon impact, the stone's velocity is negative, indicating downward motion, consistent with energy conservation principles. The discussion encourages further kinematics questions on related forums for additional assistance.
MarkFL
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
13,284
Reaction score
12
Here is the question:

Calculus Antiderivative problem.?

A stone is thrown straight up from the edge of a roof, 800 feet above the ground, at a speed of 14 feet per second.
A. Remembering that the acceleration due to gravity is -32 feet per second squared, how high is the stone 2 seconds later?
B. At what time does the stone hit the ground?
C. What is the velocity of the stone when it hits the ground?

Here is a link to the question:

Calculus Antiderivative problem.? - Yahoo! Answers

I have posted a link there to this topic so the OP can find my response.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hello sopheary dara mao,

I would orient the vertical $x$-axis of motion such that the origin coincides with the initial position of the stone, and model the motion of the stone with the IVP (where $x$ is measured in feet and time $t$ is measured in seconds):

$$x''(t)=-g$$ where $$x'(0)=v_0$$ and $$x(0)=x_0$$

Integrating once, we find:

$$x'(t)=v(t)=-gt+C$$

Using the initial conditions, we find:

$$v_0=C$$ hence:

$$v(t)=-gt+v_0$$

Integrating again, we find:

$$x(t)=-\frac{g}{2}t^2+v_0t+C$$

Using the initial conditions, we find:

$$x_0=C$$ hence:

$$x(t)=-\frac{g}{2}t^2+v_0t+x_0$$

Now, using the given data and orientation of our coordinate system, i.e:

$$g=32,\,v_0=14,\,x_0=0$$ we have:

$$x(t)=-16t^2+14t$$

$$v(t)=-32t+14$$

Now we are ready to answer the questions:

A.) $$x(2)=-16(2)^2+14(2)=-36$$

This means after 2 seconds the stone is 36 feet below its initial position, or 764 ft above the ground.

B.) To find at what time the stone hits the ground, we may set:

$$x(t)=-800$$

$$-16t^2+14t=-800$$

$$16t^2-14t-800=0$$

$$2\left(8t^2-7t-400 \right)=0$$

Applying the quadratic formula, and taking the positive root, we find:

$$t=\frac{7+\sqrt{12849}}{16}\approx7.5221$$

C.) $$v\left(\frac{7+\sqrt{12849}}{16} \right)=-32\left(\frac{7+\sqrt{12849}}{16} \right)+14=-2\sqrt{12849}$$

The negative sign indicates the stone is moving in a downward direction when it hits the ground. This is in agreement with the speed when using energy considerations, i.e., equating initial energy (gravitational potential and kinetic) to final energy (kinetic) and solving for the final velocity.

To sopheary dara mao and any other guests viewing this topic, I invite and encourage you to post other kinematics questions in either our http://www.mathhelpboards.com/f10/ forum if the calculus is to be used or our http://www.mathhelpboards.com/f22/ forum if energy considerations, or other pre-calculus techniques are to be used.

Best Regards,

Mark.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top