Trying to fix a simplification issue for a general range formula

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter FallenLeibniz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula General Range
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a derived formula for the range of a projectile launched from an arbitrary height in a vacuum. Participants explore the implications of the formula, particularly when the height approaches zero, and the resulting mathematical behavior.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Mathematical reasoning, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a formula for the range of a projectile, highlighting a potential issue when evaluating the formula at zero height.
  • Another participant suggests that the perceived discrepancy is due to encountering an indeterminate form (0/0) when substituting h = 0, recommending the use of limits to resolve it.
  • A later reply acknowledges the discontinuity identified in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the formula at h = 0, but there is recognition of the mathematical behavior involved in the limit process.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the indeterminate form that arises when evaluating the formula at zero height and the need for limit analysis, but does not resolve the broader implications of the derived formula.

FallenLeibniz
Messages
86
Reaction score
1
So I have derived a formula for the range of projectile in a vacuum fired from an arbitrary height h from above the ground as the following...

R=(vcosθ/g)[vsinθ+sqrt((vsinθ)^2+2gh)]Now it seems all well and good, but when I try to play with it by multiplying the RHS by the congugate term over the conjugate term (i.e. multiplying by one), I keep coming up with the 2gh factor on top which if h=0 leads to a discrepancy between the two. Can anyone help reconcile this? Note that all factors in the equation are positive values. I can provide a derivation of this equation later if necessary, but am late to be somewhere and so I must do it later.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not there's a discrepancy. If you plug in h = 0 you will 0/0, which is indeterminate. So the right thing to do is take the limit as h tends to 0 from above, and that will give you sin(2θ)/g, as before.
 
Ok, I see the discontinuity now. I feel horrifically blind now.
 
Thank you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
27K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K