The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

[deleted]

TaximesTaximes Registered User regular
edited July 2022 in Help / Advice Forum
[deleted]

Taximes on

Posts

  • ChenjesuChenjesu Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Well, the trajectory of the skiier will be parabolic, based on acceleration due to gravity and his speed off the end of the ramp. To solve this, I would find the equation describing the parabola, and then find the intersection of that parabola and the linear equation describing the slope. Then, use that intersection and the linear equation to find the distance.

    Problem is that I haven't used those math skills for a long long time. I guess once you have both equations, you could set them equal to each other, subtract one equation from both sides, and solve for zero to get the intersection. (There will be two zeros, but only one will be relevant, the other will be before he leaves the ramp).

    Chenjesu on
  • falsedeffalsedef Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I got 24.2m as the answer. Meh, my physics is probably too rusty.

    I don't want to post my solution if I messed up that badly, but 120m sounds a little odd too. That's a really long distance and death worthy fall.

    falsedef on
  • DragDrag Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I got 114.84 m as S. Close to 120, but not really very exact. What's a more accurate value of the velocity you calculated?

    edit: oh, duh, you gave us the numbers

    edit again: oh wait no you didn't, what's the mass of the skier

    Drag on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DragDrag Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Also, I might be mistaken, but I don't think the potential energy at the bottom is mg*4.4. The ramp levels off horizontally, so you might assume that all the potential energy at the top has been converted to kinetic enegy.

    Drag on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • TaximesTaximes Registered User regular
    edited July 2022
    [deleted]

    Taximes on
  • DragDrag Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I was wrong in my last post, you probably calculated the velocity correctly.

    Now I'm getting 116.4 with the new number, but anyway:

    you've got your Y position equation, Y=Yo + Vot + 1/2*at^2. In this problem, you can set Y=0 because that's the point you want to land at, you set your initial position Yo as 4.4 + S*sin(30), and you plug in 9.8 for a. vo is equal to zero because you have no initial velocity on the y axis. Thus, your equation should look like:

    0 = 4.4 + S*sin(30) - 4.9t^2

    For your x position equation (which is the same format), your initial X position is 0 and you have no horizontal acceleration. Your final X position will be S*cos(30). Therefore, your equation should look like this:

    S*cos(30) = (28.2)*t

    Now you've got two equations with two unknown variables, S and t. Solve the x equation for t, plug that into your y equation, and then use the quadratic formula to solve for S.

    Drag on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • falsedeffalsedef Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I have a similar setup, but the trig is switched.

    My quad looks like this:

    0 = - 4.9(t^2) + 12.12t + 4.4

    Your quad is

    0 = - 4.9(t^2) + 2*(12.12)t + 4.4

    falsedef on
  • TaximesTaximes Registered User regular
    edited July 2022
    [deleted]

    Taximes on
  • BlochWaveBlochWave Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Also with these hill problems, if you want you can think like this, you can run the axis parallel to the slope, sorta like you do with block's sliding

    You know the slope's angle with the horizontal, so what happens is your initial velocity is no longer perfectly horizontal, and gravity doesn't act perpendicular to the axis, all that does is make a perfectly normal problem with an initial velocity that's not horizontal and the weird addition of gravity not going straight "down" in your reference frame

    BlochWave on
Sign In or Register to comment.