MHB When Will the Object Be 15 Meters Above the Ground?

AI Thread Summary
An object propelled vertically upward with an initial velocity of 20 meters per second follows the equation s = -4.9t^2 + 20t. To determine when it reaches 15 meters above the ground, the equation simplifies to 4.9t^2 - 20t + 15 = 0, yielding two solutions: approximately 0.99 seconds while ascending and 3.09 seconds while descending. The discussion emphasizes the importance of accurately accounting for the gravitational acceleration, which is approximately 9.81 m/s². The calculations demonstrate the object's trajectory and the significance of quadratic equations in motion analysis. Understanding these principles is crucial for accurately predicting the object's behavior in vertical motion scenarios.
karush
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,240
Reaction score
5
$\tiny{1.2.1}$
An object is propelled vertically upward with an initial velocity of 20 meters per second.
The distance s (in meters) of the object from the ground after t seconds is
$s=-4.9t^2+20t$
(a) When will the object be 15 meters above the ground?
$15=-4.9t^2+20 \implies -4.9t^2 =-5$
ok there is no term b so decided not to use quadratic formula
so far...:unsure:
$49t^2=50$

(b) When will it strike the ground?
(c) Will the object reach a height of 100 meters
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
karush said:
$\tiny{1.2.1}$
An object is propelled vertically upward with an initial velocity of 20 meters per second.
The distance s (in meters) of the object from the ground after t seconds is
$s=-4.9t^2+20t$
(a) When will the object be 15 meters above the ground?
$15=-4.9t^2+20 \implies -4.9t^2 =-5$
ok there is no term b so decided not to use quadratic formula
You dropped the t on the 20t term in going from [math]s = -4.9t^2 + 20t[/math] to [math]15 = -4.9t^2 + 20t[/math].

-Dan
 
.
 
Last edited:
topsquark said:
You dropped the t on the 20t term in going from [math]s = -4.9t^2 + 20t[/math] to [math]15 = -4.9t^2 + 20t[/math].

-Dan

$15 = -4.9t^2 + 20t
\implies 4.9t^2-20t+15=0
\implies 49t^2-200t+150=0$
kinda hefty for a quadratic equation so went to W|A
$t\approx 3.0914s$ probably this since it is going up
$t\approx 0.99024s $

it was tempting to just round off the 4.9 but think this how fast things fall
 
karush said:
$15 = -4.9t^2 + 20t
\implies 4.9t^2-20t+15=0
\implies 49t^2-200t+150=0$
kinda hefty for a quadratic equation so went to W|A
$t\approx 3.0914s$ probably this since it is going up
$t\approx 0.99024s $

it was tempting to just round off the 4.9 but think this how fast things fall
Mostly a good job. On the way up it passes 15 m at t = 0.099024 s. g is the acceleration due to gravity so it's how fast it is changing how fast it is falling. (Just call it an acceleration.. it's easier!)

Technically g is about 9.81 m/s^2 but the number locally is slightly different everywhere so it changes a bit. 9.8 m/s^2 is good enough.

-Dan
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top