Understanding Free Fall: Explained in Simple Terms | K.I.S.I.S."

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of free fall, specifically addressing the acceleration due to gravity, which is approximately 32 ft/sec². A participant mistakenly suggested an acceleration of 93 ft/sec², leading to confusion regarding the speed of an object in free fall. Calculations indicate that if an object falls from a height of one mile (5280 feet), it would take approximately 18.11 seconds to reach the ground under the assumption of constant acceleration. However, when considering terminal velocity, the time to fall a mile would be about 56.8 seconds at 93 ft/sec.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, particularly acceleration and gravity.
  • Familiarity with the equations of motion, specifically the SUVAT equations.
  • Knowledge of terminal velocity and its implications in free fall scenarios.
  • Ability to perform unit conversions between imperial and metric systems.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the SUVAT equations for constant acceleration in physics.
  • Learn about terminal velocity and its factors, including air resistance.
  • Explore online calculators for free fall calculations and unit conversions.
  • Investigate the effects of air resistance on falling objects in different environments.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the principles of free fall and the effects of gravity on falling objects.

Grimstone
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
I had this elaborate example all set up to lay my question out. and I can hear my x wife in my head. "you over think everything"

So here is my question.
I do not understand free falls 93feet/sec /second.
this sounds to me that Tim would be doing 279 feet per second after only 3 seconds. ??:confused:


If Tim fell 1 mile. how long till he reached ground?

Please. K.I.S.I.S keep it simple I'm stupid.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Grimstone said:
So here is my question.
I do not understand free falls 93feet/sec /second.
The acceleration of a free falling body (ignoring air resistance) is about 32 ft/sec/sec.
 
I agree with Doc Al's approximate value.

To Grimstone (a small explanation, hopefully I can help in case you are confused about free fall stuff): The meaning of 32 ft/sec/sec is essentially the acceleration of the object in free-fall. This value is simply due to Earth's gravity.

If free-fall acceleration was 93 ft/sec/sec as you said, then yes the object would be doing 279 feet per second after only 3 seconds. (But this value for the acceleration is roughly three times more than what it actually is for Earth).

Lastly, about Tim falling a mile, and how much time this would take: To work this out, you need to do a bit of calculus, or use the equations for constant acceleration (the suvat equations, was the name used when they were taught to me).
 
Perhaps Grimstone meant that terminal velocity, the speed at which air resistance equals the force of gravity so we have a constant speed, is 93 feet per second (not "per second per second). At 93 feet per second, it would take 279/93= 3 seconds to fall 279 feet. At that terminal velocity, it would take Tim 5280/93= 56.8 seconds to fall a mile- almost a minute. Of course, Tim isn't really going to be concerned about that!
 
poor tim. he will always be remembered.
 
BruceW said:
poor tim. he will always be remembered.

as the man who sacrificed himself to create a slightly more interesting math problem.
 
my answer is 18.11 secs??
 
here's my solution
1mi=5280 ft
y=-1/2gt^2
-5280 = -1/2(32.2)t^2

t^2= -5280/(-16.1)

t^2 = 327.95

t=18.11 secs...
 
  • #10
looks good to me.
 
  • #11
killme22 said:
here's my solution
1mi=5280 ft
y=-1/2gt^2
-5280 = -1/2(32.2)t^2

t^2= -5280/(-16.1)

t^2 = 327.95

t=18.11 secs...

You forget, he is at terminal velocity! It is not an acceleration problem, but one of constant velocity.
 
  • #12
Yes, Grimstone's tim is traveling at terminal velocity, and killme22's tim is falling without air resistance. I forgot the earlier posts. Both answers are right really, but it depends on the assumptions made. That's one of the things I like about physics, the assumptions we use can often be explicitly stated. But in philosophy, literature, e.t.c. the assumptions are often vague or not explicitly stated.
 
  • #13
That'll be why Philosophers couldn't put a Rover on Mars - but they could discuss the significance all night.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
26
Views
11K