Vectors in two dimensional motion: Need help with starting

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a car's motion represented by vectors in two-dimensional space. The original poster seeks to determine the resultant displacement after the car travels specific distances in given directions, requiring a graphical representation as part of the solution process.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the addition of vectors, emphasizing that magnitudes cannot be summed directly due to differing directions. There are mentions of using geometric methods or resolving vectors into components to find the resultant vector.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided links to resources for further understanding, while others express confusion over the calculations attempted by the original poster. There is an ongoing exploration of the correct methods for vector addition and the implications of the graphical representation.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the requirement to construct a graph as specified by the homework guidelines, which may influence the approach to solving the problem. There is also a mention of a specific expected answer, which raises questions about the calculations being performed.

mrrocketknigh
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A car travels 20.0 km due north and then 35.0 km in a direction of 60(degrees) west of north. Using a graph (that you must construct yourself as the book says... sorry for the inconvenience :/) and find the magnitude and direction of a single vector that gives the net effect of the car's trip. This vector is called the car's RESULTANT DISPLACEMENT.


Homework Equations


You must know the properties of vectors, but even with that knowledge, I can't seem to find the answer. The ANSWER SHOULD BE 48 km. Can someone explain to me why?



The Attempt at a Solution


I added vector A with vector B and got about 55 km. Why am I wrong? Am I missing something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In general, vectors don't add like that. You can't add up the magnitudes of the two vectors directly, because they aren't in the same direction. The resultant vector should be a vector that indicates how far away the car ended up from its starting point. Try looking at this:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vect.html#vec7
 
cepheid said:
In general, vectors don't add like that. You can't add up the magnitudes of the two vectors directly, because they aren't in the same direction. The resultant vector should be a vector that indicates how far away the car ended up from its starting point. Try looking at this:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vect.html#vec7
Alright, thanks for the link. But, I still don't know if this is correct, but I managed to get this. I added both vectors, giving me approx. 55 ft. Then I took the square root of that to get approx. 7 ft. I then subtracted 7 from 55 to get the answer: 48 ft. Is that the basic way of doing these problems?
 
mrrocketknigh said:
Alright, thanks for the link. But, I still don't know if this is correct, but I managed to get this. I added both vectors, giving me approx. 55 ft.

Huh? How did you do that? I just finished telling you that you cannot add up the magnitudes of the vectors directly. This should be clear from the diagram. When you add vector A to vector B (which you do by placing them "tip" to "end"), you can clearly see that the length of the resultant R is not equal to the sum of the lengths of A and B. The three form a triangle, and to get the side length of R, you either need to (1) use geometry (based on what you know about that triangle and the lengths of sides A and B), OR (2) you need to resolve A and B into horizontal and vertical components, and add those up separately to get the horizontal component of R and the vertical component of R. Then you can use those to get the magnitude of R.

Either method (1) or (2) will work.

mrrocketknigh said:
Then I took the square root of that to get approx. 7 ft. I then subtracted 7 from 55 to get the answer: 48 ft. Is that the basic way of doing these problems?

Okay this doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The square root of 55 is NOT 7, and you haven't given any indication as to why you tried these steps. Don't just try random things. Examine the diagram and try to understand how to solve for the length of the third side of the triangle given that you know what the other two are.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
13K
Replies
3
Views
2K