Speed of Jet Plane - Solving the Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Von Neumann
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Jet Plane Speed
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around deriving the speed of a jet plane based on the time it takes for a sonic boom to reach an observer after the plane passes overhead. The key equation presented is v_s=hv/sqrt(h^2-v^2*T^2), which relates the speed of the plane to the height and the speed of sound. Participants express confusion over the geometric assumption h^2=(vT)^2+(v_s*T)^2, questioning its validity and the application of Pythagorean theorem in this context. The conversation emphasizes the need for a clear geometric representation to understand the relationship between the distances involved. Ultimately, the discussion seeks clarification on the geometric significance of the assumptions made in the derivation.
Von Neumann
Messages
101
Reaction score
4
Problem:

You see a jet plane flying and you think that it is flying at a constant altitude h. Say you hear the sonic boom at a time t after the plane passes directly overhead. Show that if the speed of sound v is the same at all altitudes, the speed of the plane is

v_s=hv/sqrt(h^2-v^2*T^2)

Partial Solution:

The sound travels a distance vT and the plane travels a distance v_s*T before the boom is found. Correct? However, I need to relate this to the height. If you assume h^2=(vT)^2+(v_s*T)^2. Since the speed of sound is the same at all altitude then the boom forms a perfect cone with angle θ with the ground. Then substituting in sinθ=v/v_s you can easily get the expression. However I don't fully understand the assumption h^2=(vT)^2+(v_s*T)^2 because geometrically it doesn't make sense to me. Any insight?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Von Neumann said:
If you assume h^2=(vT)^2+(v_s*T)^2
Why would you assume that? Pythagoras wouldn't have.
 
haruspex said:
Why would you assume that? Pythagoras wouldn't have.
As I stated, with that assumption I get the identity as given. If you also go back and read the question, I ask for insight on the geometric significance of that assumption.
 
Von Neumann said:
As I stated, with that assumption I get the identity as given. If you also go back and read the question, I ask for insight on the geometric significance of that assumption.

Looks like my hint was too subtle. Draw the diagram on which you based that equation. Which is the hypotenuse?
 
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 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
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