Time at given speed in freefall

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
13 replies · 9K views
KingNothing
Messages
880
Reaction score
4
Here is a problem from my book:

If a car rolls gently (initial velocity = 0) off a vertical cliff, how long does it take to reach 90km/h?

It seems easy, and I have been breezing through all the other ones like it's my job, but for some reason this one gets me. I knwo it's possible, but I just don't know how. The answer is supposed to be 2.6 seconds, but I somehow always wind up dividing 90 by 9.8. Any help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you familiar with the expression:

[tex]v(t) = v_0 + \frac{1}{2} a t^2[/tex]?

Just solve it for t.

- Warren
 
Alright, thanks...but I still seem to get the wrong answer consistently. I do:

90=0.5(9.8)t^2
90=4.9t^2
18.37=t^2
t=4.29

what is going wrong?
 
Originally posted by Decker
what is going wrong?
Convert 90 km/hr into m/s first, so that your units will agree.

- Warren
 
Thanks, I don't know how I skipped that. That's what happened on the quiz, too. Did all of them perfectly, then on one forgot to convert.

Also, is it just me, or should I really end up with about 2.26 seconds?
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Decker
Also, is it just me, or should I really end up with about 2.26 seconds?

I get 2.258769757 on my calculator using g = 9.8 m/s^2.

Does the problem explicitly say we can ignore air resistance?
 
Chroot: I must confess that during the several days I spent in calculus (and physics) class, I never saw an equation that said
"[tex]v(t) = v_0 + \frac{1}{2} a t^2[/tex]"

I do recall seeing one that said "[tex]v(t)= v_0+ at[/tex]" and one that said "[tex]d(t)= d_0+ v_0t+ \frac{1}{2}at^2[/tex]".

Assuming no air resistance and that a= -9.8 m/s2, with v0= 0, v(t)= -9.8 t m/s. Since there are 1000m in a km and 60*60= 3600 sec in and hour, -90 km/hr= -90 *1000/3600= -25 m/s.
-25= -9.8 t so t= 25/9.8= 2.55 seconds.

Looks pretty easy to me (as long as you don't listen to Chroot!).

(C'mon, who is it that's using Chroot's good name?)
 
I'm sure it was just an oversight. :smile:.
 
Last edited:
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

*slinks into a corner and hides*

- Warren
 
Or you can use

v^2 = v0^2 + 2aΔx.

Solve for Δx and then time is just Δx/v.
 
Optimus, you can't do that because once you've solved for the distance its fallen, dividing by v means you are assuming that the velocity is constant, which it obviously isn't.
 
Originally posted by chroot
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

*slinks into a corner and hides*

- Warren


GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!


I blindly assumed chroot's equation was correct.

Give me back the two minutes of my life I wasted!
 
Originally posted by Warr
Optimus, you can't do that because once you've solved for the distance its fallen, dividing by v means you are assuming that the velocity is constant, which it obviously isn't.

Besides, x is not given.
 
Originally posted by Warr
Optimus, you can't do that because once you've solved for the distance its fallen, dividing by v means you are assuming that the velocity is constant, which it obviously isn't.

Actually, under a constant acceleration, you can compute the time using the average velocity.

Given the final velocity and displacement, to solve for t:

[tex]t = \frac{2 d}{V_f}[/tex] or

[tex]\frac{V_f}{2} = \frac{d}{t}[/tex]

Vf/2 when Vi=0 and acceleration is constant gives the average velocity.
 
Last edited: