Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Using your common sense to solve a physics problem.
Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 188 (144211)
09-23-2004 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by riVeRraT
09-23-2004 5:48 PM


riVeRraT, a bit of maybe not so common sense advice when dealing with equations.
As long as you can, try NOT to put in any numbers in the equations. If it says that the mass of the car is 'm', use 'm' as long as you possibly can.
It is also perfectly reasonable, and often prefered, to give an answer that isn't a number but just the final equation that you can just stick everything into.
That means less mess with calculators and rounding off and such. Quite a lot of people seem to think numbers are easier to work with, but it's usually the other way when it comes to equations.
If there is any step you feel you don't understand, or you get stuck, I can help you out if you send a PM. I don't think posting answers in this thread is the intent of the thread maker.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 5:48 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by coffee_addict, posted 09-23-2004 6:50 PM Melchior has replied
 Message 44 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 11:58 PM Melchior has not replied

Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 188 (144223)
09-23-2004 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by coffee_addict
09-23-2004 6:50 PM


Oh, I'm too used to built in PM features; E-mailing would be equivalent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by coffee_addict, posted 09-23-2004 6:50 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 188 (144465)
09-24-2004 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by riVeRraT
09-24-2004 8:52 AM


quote:
You mean I will role down a hill at the same speed regrdless of the slope? you obviously didn't understand how I was applying the grade to the formula.
  —RiVeRraT
Acceleration due to gravity is constant. However, you will roll faster down a hill the steeper it is. This is because while the strenght of gravity is constant, it has a direction (toward the center of the earth). In a slope, it points partially into the ground and partially 'down' the slope.
Note that regardless of how steep the slope is, gravity can only contribute from 0 to 9.8m/s^2 acceleration. If the slope is vertical, it's basically a free fall.
I think you got the right idea but expressed it strangely.
Same with the Uk bit. Uk itself is constant (given in the problem). It's the force between the car and the road that can change.
Also, your initial speed formula is off. You need to take the square root of that to get v.
The formula starts as v^2 = 2*g*d*Uk. You should always double-check the units (v must be m/s). g*d is in m^2/s^2.
This is a perfectly good formula for flat ground, but it's probably better to start from scratch instead of modifying it when you have a slope.
This message has been edited by Melchior, 09-24-2004 02:24 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by riVeRraT, posted 09-24-2004 8:52 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by riVeRraT, posted 09-24-2004 4:59 PM Melchior has not replied

Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 188 (144542)
09-24-2004 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by riVeRraT
09-24-2004 5:30 PM


The answer for flat ground, Uk=0.45, d=30 meters is;
v^2 = 2*Uk*g*d = 264.6 m^s/s^2
v = 16.267 m/s
16.267 m/s = 16.267 / 1609 * 3600 mph = 36.396 mph
Given that there are 1609 meters in a mile, and 3600 seconds in an hour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by riVeRraT, posted 09-24-2004 5:30 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 188 (145145)
09-27-2004 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by riVeRraT
09-27-2004 4:01 PM


quote:
which carries a uniform line charge of λ.
Lambda is a rather frequent symbol and you can't really assume it means wavelenght unless you are talking about wave-physics or similar fields.
This message has been edited by Melchior, 09-27-2004 05:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by riVeRraT, posted 09-27-2004 4:01 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024