Throwing Objects - Motion in Two Dimensions
- Thread starter mustafamistik
- Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around solving a physics problem related to projectile motion, specifically parts c and d. Participants express confusion about how to discuss part c, which requires calculations involving angle and speed to determine maximum height. There is a consensus that the angle should be close to 45 degrees, but not exactly, unless specific conditions are met. Calculations for maximum height are debated, with some participants questioning the accuracy of their results, particularly regarding the influence of gravity. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities of the problem and the need for careful consideration of kinematic equations.
Physics news on Phys.org
- 29,404
- 21,100
Part c) says "discuss" and I don't see any discussion. I can't work out what your answer to d) is either.
mustafamistik
- 35
- 4
Is my solving way correct for part a ? I don't know how to discuss part c, what logic should I think?PeroK said:Part c) says "discuss" and I don't see any discussion. I can't work out what your answer to d) is either.
- 29,404
- 21,100
What is your answer for part a)?mustafamistik said:Is my solving way correct for part a ? I don't know how to discuss part c, what logic should I think?
mustafamistik
- 35
- 4
It's attached.PeroK said:What is your answer for part a)?
- 29,404
- 21,100
45 degrees?mustafamistik said:It's attached.
That said, this is a strange problem. The answer must be close to 45 degrees, but it cannot be exactly 45 degrees, unless you take ##g = 10 m/s^2##.
mustafamistik
- 35
- 4
I rounded it. It comes from 4,9/5*tan^2... equation.PeroK said:45 degrees?
That said, this is a strange problem. The answer must be close to 45 degrees, but it cannot be exactly 45 degrees, unless you take ##g = 10 m/s^2##.
- 29,404
- 21,100
Rounding or not makes a big difference to part c).mustafamistik said:I rounded it. It comes from 4,9/5*tan^2... equation.
mustafamistik
- 35
- 4
Understood. Actually i wonder if my solution way is correct. For part a.PeroK said:Rounding or not makes a big difference to part c).
- 29,404
- 21,100
It looks okay to me.mustafamistik said:Understood. Actually i wonder if my solution way is correct. For part a.
mustafamistik
- 35
- 4
Thanks. I don't know how to discuss part c, what logic should I think?PeroK said:It looks okay to me.
- 29,404
- 21,100
It wants calculations: angle, speed gives max height.mustafamistik said:Thanks. I don't know how to discuss part c, what logic should I think?
mustafamistik
- 35
- 4
In maximum height vertical speed must equal to 0.
##V_0*sin(45)/g= t##
##(V_0*sin(45)*t)-(1/2*g*t^2)=H_{max}##
##(V_0*sin(45)*(V_0*sin(45)/g))-(1/2*g*(V_0*sin(45)/g)^2)=H_{max}## ...
Is this way true ? for part C.
##V_0*sin(45)/g= t##
##(V_0*sin(45)*t)-(1/2*g*t^2)=H_{max}##
##(V_0*sin(45)*(V_0*sin(45)/g))-(1/2*g*(V_0*sin(45)/g)^2)=H_{max}## ...
Is this way true ? for part C.
- 29,404
- 21,100
Can you not tidy that up? You should get a simple formula for max height if ##\theta = 45°##mustafamistik said:In maximum height vertical speed must equal to 0.
##V_0*sin(45)/g= t##
##(V_0*sin(45)*t)-(1/2*g*t^2)=H_{max}##
##(V_0*sin(45)*(V_0*sin(45)/g))-(1/2*g*(V_0*sin(45)/g)^2)=H_{max}## ...
Is this way true ? for part C.
mustafamistik
- 35
- 4
I don't know how to do that.PeroK said:Can you not tidy that up? You should get a simple formula for max height if ##\theta = 45°##
- 29,404
- 21,100
It's basic kinematics. ##v^2 - u^2 = 2as##mustafamistik said:I don't know how to do that.
Or, in this case ##v_y^2 - u_y^2 = 2a_ys_y##
mustafamistik
- 35
- 4
##0-(5*sqrt(5))^2=2*H_{max}## ?PeroK said:It's basic kinematics. ##v^2 - u^2 = 2as##
Or, in this case ##v_y^2 - u_y^2 = 2a_ys_y##
Then ##62.5=H_{max}##
But is result too big ?
- 29,404
- 21,100
Isn't there a little thing called gravity involved in the calculation? And isn't the angle involved too?mustafamistik said:##0-(5*sqrt(5))^2=2*H_{max}## ?
Then ##62.5=H_{max}##
But is result too big ?
mustafamistik
- 35
- 4
Sorry. You're right.PeroK said:Isn't there a little thing called gravity involved in the calculation? And isn't the angle involved too?
##0-(5*sqrt(5)*sin(45))^2=2*g*H_{max}## =4.46
Yes seems to be true .
- 29,404
- 21,100
I thought you were trying to find whether ##H_{max} = 3m## or not.mustafamistik said:Sorry. You're right.
##0-(5*sqrt(5)*sin(45))^2=2*g*H_{max}## =4.46
Yes seems to be true .
mustafamistik
- 35
- 4
Yes, according to my calculations ##H_{max}## bigger than 3mPeroK said:I thought you were trying to find whether ##H_{max} = 3m## or not.
mustafamistik
- 35
- 4
For part D. Radial component is zero, tangential component is ##g## of acceleration. Am i wrong?
- 29,404
- 21,100
Okay, but you may want to check your calculations: ##4.46m## is too high.mustafamistik said:Yes, according to my calculations ##H_{max}## bigger than 3m
- 29,404
- 21,100
I assume that's right. It's an odd question, as it has little relevance to the specific problem.mustafamistik said:For part D. Radial component is zero, tangential component is ##g## of acceleration. Am i wrong?
mustafamistik
- 35
- 4
I understand. Thanks for your help.PeroK said:I assume that's right. It's an odd question, as it has little relevance to the specific problem.
Similar threads
- · Replies 1 ·
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 1K
- · Replies 9 ·
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 1K
- · Replies 20 ·
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 1K
- · Replies 8 ·
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 2K
- · Replies 5 ·
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 1K
- · Replies 48 ·
- Replies
- 48
- Views
- 4K
- · Replies 11 ·
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 2K
- · Replies 30 ·
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 2K