The acceleration of falling backwards

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on analyzing the acceleration of a person falling backwards, specifically how to measure the differing accelerations of the head, feet, and middle of the body. It suggests modeling the scenario as a flat board with evenly distributed mass, simplifying the analysis. The problem is likened to classical mechanics scenarios involving a tipping cylinder or a hinged rod, with equations for torque and angular acceleration provided. The use of numerical integration via spreadsheets is mentioned as a method to graph the angle versus time during the fall. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the complexity of the physics involved in such a falling motion.
jethrotull
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I was wondering how you could analyse such things as the acceleration of someone falling directly backwards. The head clearly moves faster than the feet but how can the acceleration of each be measured? What about the acceleration in the middle?

I guess on a amore general level i am looking for an answer that is more simplified than analyzing a person's fall. assume that the person is a flat board on the Earth's surface and their mass is evenly destributed throughout the board.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jethrotull said:
I was wondering how you could analyse such things as the acceleration of someone falling directly backwards. The head clearly moves faster than the feet but how can the acceleration of each be measured? What about the acceleration in the middle?

I guess on a amore general level i am looking for an answer that is more simplified than analyzing a person's fall. assume that the person is a flat board on the Earth's surface and their mass is evenly destributed throughout the board.

This is actually a rather common problem in classical mechanics using the lagrangian/hamiltonian method. It is typically an upright cylinder that is tipping over, with some coefficient of friction between the bottom of the cylinder and the surface. In fact, another variation to this problem is the falling chimney.

Zz.
 
You could consider a rod hinged at one end and consider the period between rod nearly vertical, to rod horizontal.

For a rod rotating about and end point the moment of inertia = mass x length2 / 3 and would be constant.

The torque = 1/2 length x sin(angle_from_vertical) x weight

The angular acceleration = torque / inertia

Then you'd need to determine the relationship of angle versus time. If the rod is vertical, it doesn't fall, so you need to start with some small angle. The equation is complicated, using a pendulum as an example where moment of inertia = mass x length2, 3 times that of a rod pivoting at one end, but otherwise also a constant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_(mathematics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_(derivations)

I use a spreadsheet to do a crude numerical integration of time, to make a graph of angle versus time starting at +179 degrees, where 180 degrees means vertical:

http://jeffareid.net/misc/rod2.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top