What is the Quadratic Equation for Calculating a Football's Trajectory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter physicsgal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quadratic
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the quadratic equation used to calculate the trajectory of a football, specifically focusing on height as a function of time. Participants explore the implications of the equation h = -4.9t^2 + 10t + 3, including determining the vertex and the time the ball spends above a certain height.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the calculation of the vertex and the time the ball reaches the ground. There are attempts to understand how to determine the time the ball is above 5 meters, with some confusion regarding the setup of the equation. Another participant introduces a problem involving complex numbers and the roots of a quadratic equation.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and clarifications on the quadratic equation and its applications. Some participants express gratitude for the assistance received, indicating that helpful guidance has been shared. There are multiple interpretations being explored, particularly regarding the relationship between the vertex and the Rational Root Theorem.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating through the complexities of quadratic equations, including the implications of complex roots and the specific parameters of the football trajectory problem. There is a noted lack of consensus on certain aspects, particularly regarding the application of the Rational Root Theorem and its relation to the vertex form of a quadratic equation.

physicsgal
Messages
164
Reaction score
0
i think I am pretty much 'in the know' about this one.

it's an equation about a football player kicking a football..
h = -4.9t^2 + 10t + 3
h = height (in meters)
t = time (in seconds)

so the vertex is 9.25m height at 1.25 seconds? (i figured this on my graphing calculator).

and the other question asks how many seconds til the ball reaches the ground and by using the quadratic formula i got 2.3 seconds.

then the last question has to do about how much time is the ball above the 5 meter mark.

so this would be:
5m = -4.9t^2 + 10t + 3?
i don't know how i'd figure this out. any help is appreciated!

~Amy
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The vertex is [tex]-\frac{b}{2a}[/tex]. So its [tex](1.02, 8.10)[/tex]. Your second answer is correct.

For the third one, you do the following

[tex]-4.9t^{2} + 10t -2 = 0[/tex]
[tex]t = 0.224[/tex]

Since we know that at time 1.02 seconds the football is at its highest point, then the ball spends [tex]2(1.02-.224) = 1.592[/tex] seconds above the 5m mark.
 
im not quite seeing it yet.. where did the -2 come from? nevermind.. 3-5 = -2.. i see it now :) thanks
 
thanks for the help :smile:

here's another one that's a bit of a pickle. I've attempted it. it has to do with complex numbers.

"find the equation of a quadratic that has 3 + i and 3- i as it's roots.

= (x - x(3-i))(x - (3-i))
= x^2 - x(3-i) - x(3+i) + (3+i)(3-i)
=x^2 - 6x + 9 - i^2
x^2 - 6x + 10

does that look ok?

~Amy
 
yep, that is correct.
 
courtrigrad said:
The vertex is [tex]-\frac{b}{2a}[/tex]. So its [tex](1.02, 8.10)[/tex]. Your second answer is correct.

For the third one, you do the following

[tex]-4.9t^{2} + 10t -2 = 0[/tex]
[tex]t = 0.224[/tex]

Since we know that at time 1.02 seconds the football is at its highest point, then the ball spends [tex]2(1.02-.224) = 1.592[/tex] seconds above the 5m mark.

Yes, the situation is symmetric so the time going from the 5 m height to its highest point is equal to the time it spends going back down to the level. A little more direct:
The quadratic equation [itex]-4.9t^2+ 10t- 2= 0[/itex] has two[\b], the smaller being when it reaches 5 m on the way up, the larger when it passes 5 m on the way down. The time it spends above 5 m is the difference between the two.
 
so to calculate any vertex it's just -B/-2A? and that gives you p or q? and then what's the easy calculation for the other one? (p or q i dunno). so the 'c' value doesn't matter?

thanks for the tips Hallsofivy

~Amy
 
yes [tex]-\frac{b}{2a}[/tex] is the vertex. The [tex]p[/tex] and [tex]q[/tex] you are talking about is part of the Rational Root Theorem.

[tex]p[/tex] is all the factors of the constant term.
[tex]q[/tex] is all the factors of the leading coefficient.

So you can have [tex]y = x^{2}-6x+7[/tex]
[tex]\frac{p}{q} = \frac{{\pm1,\pm7}}{{\pm1}}[/tex]
 
but how did you end up with two values for the vertex. like in your 2nd post in this thread you did the -b/-2a and got 1.02 and 8.10?

im not sure what you mean by the root theorem. in my lesson books +p, and q = the vertex.

y = a(x-P)^2 + q

~Amy
 
  • #10
8.10 is the y-coordinate of the vertex. I substituted in the 1.02 into [tex]h = -4.9t^2 + 10t + 3[/tex].

So [tex]y = a(x-1.02)^{2} + 8.10[/tex]
 
Last edited:
  • #11
i see now :smile:

so according to that x (of the vertex) = p, and y(of the vertex) = q?

~Amy
 
  • #12
yes, that is correct
 
  • #13
thanks, that makes things a lot easier for me :wink:

~Amy
 
  • #14
physicsgal said:
thanks for the help :smile:

here's another one that's a bit of a pickle. I've attempted it. it has to do with complex numbers.

"find the equation of a quadratic that has 3 + i and 3- i as it's roots.


does that look ok?

~Amy

Hopefully you still check back to this thread..
Here's a trick to avoid multiplying a trinomial times a trinomial on such problems..

Once you simplify the (x-(3+i))(x-(3-1)), you get
(x-3-i)(x-3+i) Notice that the x-3 is the same in both factors.
Draw a box around the x-3 in both of the factors. Ignoring what's in the box (but it's the same in both boxes), it looks like
(box-i)(box+i) which you (hopefully) recognize is a conjugate pair.

So, the product is (box)^2 - i^2
or x^2-6x+9 +1 = your answer.

Since you'll probably be faced with a lot of problems in which either the complex roots or the irrational roots will be a conjugate pair of roots, writing the factors as a conjugate pair in this manner is a great time saver. I avoided showing it more formally, choosing to have you draw a box around the x-3's, rather than a set of parenthesis, simply because that way has "worked" better for students I've had.
 
  • #15
i see what you're saying and i wrote it in my study notes/cheat sheet :biggrin:. i don't have much in the way of mathematical aptitude, so any quick tricks help :smile:

thanks

~Amy
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
13K
Replies
6
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K