Throwing Objects - Motion in Two Dimensions
- Thread starter mustafamistik
- Start date
Click For Summary
Homework Help Overview
The discussion revolves around a physics problem related to projectile motion in two dimensions, specifically focusing on the calculations and reasoning behind the angle of projection and maximum height of a thrown object.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation
Approaches and Questions Raised
- Participants express uncertainty about their approaches to parts a, c, and d of the problem, questioning the logic and calculations involved. There are discussions about the significance of the angle of projection and its impact on maximum height, as well as the role of gravity in the calculations.
Discussion Status
Several participants have shared their calculations and reasoning, with some expressing doubts about the correctness of their methods. There is an ongoing exploration of the implications of rounding in calculations and the relevance of different components of motion. Guidance has been offered regarding the need for clarity in discussing part c and the importance of gravity in the calculations.
Contextual Notes
Participants are navigating the complexities of the problem, including assumptions about gravity and the angle of projection. There is a noted lack of consensus on certain calculations, particularly regarding maximum height and the interpretation of the components of motion.
- 29,556
- 21,352
- 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.
- 29,556
- 21,352
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?
- 35
- 4
It's attached.PeroK said:What is your answer for part a)?
- 29,556
- 21,352
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##.
- 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##.
- 29,556
- 21,352
Rounding or not makes a big difference to part c).mustafamistik said:I rounded it. It comes from 4,9/5*tan^2... equation.
- 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).
- 29,556
- 21,352
It looks okay to me.mustafamistik said:Understood. Actually i wonder if my solution way is correct. For part a.
- 35
- 4
Thanks. I don't know how to discuss part c, what logic should I think?PeroK said:It looks okay to me.
- 29,556
- 21,352
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?
- 35
- 4
##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.
- 29,556
- 21,352
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.
- 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°##
- 29,556
- 21,352
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##
- 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 ?
- 29,556
- 21,352
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 ?
- 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 .
- 29,556
- 21,352
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 .
- 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.
- 35
- 4
- 29,556
- 21,352
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
- 29,556
- 21,352
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?
- 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 20 ·
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 2K
- · Replies 9 ·
- Replies
- 9
- 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 30 ·
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 2K