Will the Cars Meet During the Chase?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving a car chase where a thief accelerates away from a police officer. The initial calculations show that the police officer, starting 100 meters behind, will never catch the thief due to the latter's acceleration. The user encounters a mathematical inconsistency when applying the quadratic formula, leading to confusion about the results. It is clarified that the negative discriminant indicates complex solutions, meaning the officer cannot catch the thief, and the calculator's output may have been misinterpreted. Ultimately, the conclusion is that the police officer will not catch up to the thief during the chase.
ujellytek
Messages
35
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


There is a speedy car chase! A thief is getting away from a police officer. The distance between them at the start is 100m. The thief starts to accelerate at 5.0m/s^2 [F] from rest. Meanwhile the police is chasing him at its max velocity of 30m/s (sad... I know XD). Show that the police officer NEVER CATCHES UP to the thief.

Please take a gander at section 3 and answer this:

i) First off, is my solution correct?

ii) Ok... this seems to be the correct solution because they are NOT supposed to meet-up/collide during the car chase at all, because subbing in 6s into both equations gives 90m and 80m, but how can the quad formula say that at 6s they do meet (why do we get this mathematical inconsistency?)?

iii)Or did I just do It wrong? Please explain this in more depth if you want, or just show me how to solve it, this is kind of a bonus question and I need ALL the marks I can to get into software engineering, please help!

~Thanks

P.S. I will watch this thread inthe next little while, and in 10 hours plus a constant span of 75min (my period 1 spare) [i'm also interested in question 2)ii) quite a bit].

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution


So since the officer stars 100 meters behind I got: d=t*30-100
and for the thief I got: d= v*t+0.5*a*t^2 which becomes d=2.5*t^2 because thief starts at rest

Then I make these two equations equal to each other: t*30-100=2.5*t^2 and I make it equal to 0;
thus 0=2.5*t^2-30t+100 and when I apply the quadratics formula I get i2 seconds and 6 seconds.

Now when I sub 2s into the officers displacement equation I get: d(6s)=(6)*30-100= 80m
and, for the thief I get: d(6s)=2.5(6)^2= 90m

I get a mathematical inconsistency and that satisfies the question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you need to check your quadratic equation again. What did you get for the discriminant?
 
  • Like
Likes ujellytek
gneill said:
I think you need to check your quadratic equation again. What did you get for the discriminant?
Ohh, I'm using a SHARP calculator that can use Quad formula by plugging in A,B,C of quadratic equation (it's never given me a wrong answer before), when I plug in 2.5 -30 and 100 I get i2 and what appears to be 6 (my screen is broken, but I can assure you it is a 6). When I Try my own quad formula I get the discriminant of (-100) -> (B)^2 - 4(A)(C) right? (-30)^2 -4(2.5)(100) = 900-1000 = -100

Any ideas why my calc is giving me a real integer?
 
ujellytek said:
Ohh, I'm using a SHARP calculator that can use Quad formula by plugging in A,B,C of quadratic equation (it's never given me a wrong answer before), when I plug in 2.5 -30 and 100 I get i2 and what appears to be 6 (my screen is broken, but I can assure you it is a 6). When I Try my own quad formula I get the discriminant of (-100) -> (B)^2 - 4(A)(C) right? (-30)^2 -4(2.5)(100) = 900-1000 = -100
Right. What does it mean when the discriminant is negative?
Any ideas why my calc is giving me a real integer?
Yes, it didn't :smile: It gave you one complex result: (6 + 2i), not 6 and 2i. There's probably another root accessible through some manipulation of the calculator's registers.
 
  • Like
Likes ujellytek
gneill said:
Right. What does it mean when the discriminant is negative?

Yes, it didn't :smile: It gave you one complex result: (6 + 2i), not 6 and 2i. There's probably another root accessible through some manipulation of the calculator's registers.
Ahh, that makes a lot of sense, my calc shows X1=6, which is probably 6+ some bugged value, and X2=i2 which is probably 6(which is bugged out) +i2, thanks a lot!
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top