What is the height of the Willis Tower in Chicago based on changes in gravity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter math34
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the height of the Willis Tower in Chicago based on the changes in gravity measured by a gravimeter. The problem involves concepts from gravitational physics and requires understanding the relationship between gravitational acceleration and height above the Earth's surface.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the relationship between gravitational acceleration at different heights and potential energy changes. There are attempts to derive equations involving gravitational constants and the Earth's radius.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, offering hints and corrections regarding the formulation of equations. Some suggest using approximations for simplification, while others question the inclusion of mass in the calculations. The discussion appears to be progressing with various interpretations being explored.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on the assumption that the height of the building is small compared to the Earth's radius, which influences the mathematical approach taken. Participants also express uncertainty about the complexity of the equations and the relevance of certain terms.

math34
Messages
10
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement




A sensitive gravimeter is carried to the top of Chicago’s Willis (formerly Sears) Tower, where its reading for the acceleration of gravity is 1.36 mm/s^2 lower than at street level.

Find the building's height, h=?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution




I started this problem with this:

g - g' = 0.00136 m/s^2

now find the change in potential energy of gravity:

GMm/(Radius of earth)^2 - GMm/(Radius of Earth + h)^2

using this we should be able to simplify but i am not getting too far from here, it is a bit messy and i am not getting too much to cancel out here...why?

can anyone help me out?

please and thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
math34 said:
I started this problem with this:

g - g' = 0.00136 m/s^2
OK.

now find the change in potential energy of gravity:
You're finding the change in g, not gravitational PE.

GMm/(Radius of earth)^2 - GMm/(Radius of Earth + h)^2
OK, except that it should be only GM in the numerator, not GMm.

using this we should be able to simplify but i am not getting too far from here, it is a bit messy and i am not getting too much to cancel out here...why?
Assume that h is small enough compared to the Earth's radius that you can use a binomial expansion approximation.

Hint: (R + h)^2 = R^2(1 + h/R)^2; now take advantage of the fact that h/R << 1.
 
Look at \displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}-\frac{1}{(R+h)^2}=\frac{(R+h)^2-R^2}{R^2(R+h)^2}

The numerator of the expression on the right side of the equation is the difference of squares.

Factor that.

R > 6300 km. I doubt that the building is more than 1 km tall (≈5/8 mile).
 
why is m not included in the formula?

going off the rest you said:

Re = radius of Earth

GM/(Re)^2 - GM/(Re + h)^2

Gm[(Re + h)^2 - (Re)^2] /(Re)^2 (Re + h)^2

using this: (R + h)^2 = R^2(1 + h/R)^2

i reduce down to :

Gm [ h^2/Re^2 + 2h/Re] / Re^2

does this sound right? still seems like a lot going on
 
SammyS said:
Look at \displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}-\frac{1}{(R+h)^2}=\frac{(R+h)^2-R^2}{R^2(R+h)^2}

The numerator of the expression on the right side of the equation is the difference of squares.

Factor that.

R > 6300 km. I doubt that the building is more than 1 km tall (≈5/8 mile).

Did you cancel out GM?
 
math34 said:
why is m not included in the formula?
Because you want the acceleration, not the force.

going off the rest you said:

Re = radius of Earth

GM/(Re)^2 - GM/(Re + h)^2

Gm[(Re + h)^2 - (Re)^2] /(Re)^2 (Re + h)^2

using this: (R + h)^2 = R^2(1 + h/R)^2

i reduce down to :

Gm [ h^2/Re^2 + 2h/Re] / Re^2
Looks good. Now get rid of higher order terms, like (h/Re)2. They are too small to worry about. (And that m should be M, the mass of the earth.)

does this sound right? still seems like a lot going on
You're on the right track. Keep going.
 
right. now i get :

2GMh/Re^3

and get with an answer of 441.4 meterswhich turns out to be the right answer, sweet. Thanks everyone!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K