acceleration due to gravity

mlane

New member
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
30
If a man jumps on the moon at an initial velocity of 10ft/sec. and the gravitational pull is -5ft/sec^2, How do I figure out how high he jumped? I think the entire jump will last for 2 seconds?
h(t)=-5t^2 +10t + 0.. does this equation seem right?[/tex]
 
mlane said:
If a man jumps on the moon at an initial velocity of 10ft/sec. and the gravitational pull is -5ft/sec^2, How do I figure out how high he jumped? I think the entire jump will last for 2 seconds?
h(t)=-5t^2 +10t + 0.. does this equation seem right?[/tex]
Your time is right, and your equation is close -- I just wonder if you started with h''(t) = -5 and integrated, or tried to apply a formula.
 
I am just starting to learn integration.
Could you walk me through the problem?
 
Have confidence.

Did you just forget that the antiderivative of -5t is -(5/2)t^2.

I think you've got it; but at the end of the day I have no idea where you're at until you show your work.
 
I don't understand how to use the integral. I know how to get anti derivatives in some cases. I am not sure what you mean about showing work I didn't get very far because I don't know what to do with the problelm. I took the equation I had and set it equal to zero but that is not what I need, the question asks how far did the dude jump. I don't know how to set up the info to solve. I take it from what you said I should use an integral and solve some how. As far as confidence goes, it seems to be weekening everytime I am introduced something new in calculus. I am definately struggling to get by.
 
You must have formed that equation somehow.



If h(t) is the displacement of the man as a function of time, then h'(t) is his velocity and h''(t) his acceleration, agreed?

We are told his acceleration is -5ft/s^2 --> h''(t) = -5

Integrating with respect to (wrt) time gives velocity: h'(t) = -5t + C
(where C is an arbitrary constant).

Following?

We are told his initial velocity, that is, his velocity at t=0, is 10ft/s^2.

So substitute t=0 into h'(t) to solve for C:

-5(0) + C = 10 --> C = 10

And we now have h'(t) = -5t + 10

Setting h'(t)=0 -- because his velocity will be zero at the top of his jump -- gives the time it takes for him to reach the top. You did this and got t=2.

Integrating h'(t) gives us h(t).

The integral wrt t of -5t is -(5/2)t^2.
The integral wrt t of 10 is 10t.
And we need to introduce another arbitrary constant, D.

h(t) = -(5/2)t^2 + 10t + D

His initial height is 0 (from wherever his displacement is measured from, presumably the ground).

Substitute into h(t) to solve for D:

0 = -(5/2)(0) + 10(0) + D --> D = 0

(Are you seeing a pattern with these initial conditions being used to find the arbitrary constant?)

And we have a constant-free equation for h(t):

h(t) = -(5/2)t^2 + 10t + 0
\(\displaystyle \mbox{ }\,\,\)= -(5/2)t^2 + 10t

See how you were practically there?

(Although this looks really long, soon you're do it almost instantly)

Finally, we said at t=2 he reaches his max height. So substituting t=2 into h(t) will give us that height.

h(2) = -(5/2)(2^2) + 10(2)
\(\displaystyle \mbox{ }\,\)= 10

(Note that we could have just factorised the quadratic for h(t) and found the vertex of the parabola from there, but why not use calculus.)

So his maximum height is 10ft.


Just because this looks complete does not mean you're not allowed to ask.
 
Thanks for the reply.
I set up the equation from an example in the book without realizing it was h'(t) I thought it was h(t) and I thought the total jump took 2 seconds. I got some help at a math lab today which helped some but I like the thoroughness of your response. Even though we got the same answer, I think the math lab person did it wrong. We integrated from 1 to zero which we thought was half the time. Should it take the same amount of time on the way up as does on the way down? The book doesn't ask but this seems to me that it would take longer to go up than down. (maybe not)
Just a wandering thought. Would he hit the ground at the same velocity as he started with? just in the other direction?
Thanks again.
Now, if I could only understand integration by parts I'll be all set.
 
Top