Thanks! I didn't think of taking u and v in the duration of it's fall. It's led me to the right answer (0.3125 m above the window).(Original post by Zacken)
So we have: so that you can then find which will then be your for the motion starting from release.

fablereader
 Follow
 10 followers
 4 badges
 Send a private message to fablereader
 Thread Starter
Offline4ReputationRep: Follow
 21
 24032016 17:03

fablereader
 Follow
 10 followers
 4 badges
 Send a private message to fablereader
 Thread Starter
Offline4ReputationRep: Follow
 22
 24032016 18:10
I'm trying to deal with another problem. The answer I got is close, but I think I made a mistake somewhere.
'An object is projected vertically upwards with a velicty u m s^{1}. T seconds later another object is projected vertically upwards from the same point and with the same speed. Find, in terms of u, T and g, the further time which elapses before the objects collide.'
Using the equation 's = ut + (1/2)at^{2}' I got a displacement for each ball:
First ball: s = ut + (1/2)gt^{2}
Second ball: s = u(tT) + (1/2)g(tT)^{2}
Making them equal, I got:
t = u/g + T/2
As mentioned earlier, it's close but not the answer. Have I made a mistake? 
 Follow
 23
 24032016 18:12
(Original post by fablereader)
First ball: s = ut + (1/2)gt^{2}
Second ball: s = u(tT) + (1/2)g(tT)^{2} 
fablereader
 Follow
 10 followers
 4 badges
 Send a private message to fablereader
 Thread Starter
Offline4ReputationRep: Follow
 24
 24032016 18:22
(Original post by Zacken)
You seem to be taking positive as upwards, so your acceleration due to gravity acts downwards, hence the acceleration is , i.e: you should have .
Thanks! 
 Follow
 25
 24032016 18:34
(Original post by fablereader)
I always forget the simple things. Thank you for reminding me! Even after that, I got the wrong answer (u/g + T/2), so I tried changing (t  T) to (t + T), and that got me the right answer.
Thanks!
Why is this wrong? It should be .
I think your wrong answer is arising from the fact that it is the "further time elapsed" so you need to do , i.e: subtract from the "answer". 
fablereader
 Follow
 10 followers
 4 badges
 Send a private message to fablereader
 Thread Starter
Offline4ReputationRep: Follow
 26
 24032016 18:44
(Original post by Zacken)
Hmm, we have
Why is this wrong? It should be .
I think your wrong answer is arising from the fact that it is the "further time elapsed" so you need to do , i.e: subtract from the "answer". 
 Follow
 27
 24032016 18:54
(Original post by fablereader)
Sorry, I just assumed that producing an equivalent of t would be the answer, but you rightly point out that they called it 'further time'. However, I don't fully understand that, so can you explain why that would require subtracting T from the equivalent of t to get the answer? I'd like to understand it fully.
The question asks for further time, i.e: how much time after the second particle has been released do they collide? i.e: how much time after seconds has already elapsed do they collide? Basically, they want you to find the time from if you had pressed the stopwatch or started the stopwatch from when the second particle is released.
So to get this, we take the time that our stopwatch displays, i.e: the time from the first release and subtract the time that we had to wait for the lazy second particle to be released. i.e: this is , i.e: our total time and then subtract the seconds that has already elapsed.
Does that make sense? If not, I'd be happy to explain more. 
fablereader
 Follow
 10 followers
 4 badges
 Send a private message to fablereader
 Thread Starter
Offline4ReputationRep: Follow
 28
 24032016 18:59
(Original post by Zacken)
So you know that the time from the very start of the entire thing to when they collide is , the second particle, however  is released a a time . Imagine you have a stopwatch and as soon as the first particle is released you pressed it. This stopwatch is magical, so it displays when the two particles collide.
The question asks for further time, i.e: how much time after the second particle has been released do they collide? i.e: how much time after seconds has already elapsed do they collide? Basically, they want you to find the time from if you had pressed the stopwatch or started the stopwatch from when the second particle is released.
So to get this, we take the time that our stopwatch displays, i.e: the time from the first release and subtract the time that we had to wait for the lazy second particle to be released. i.e: this is , i.e: our total time and then subtract the seconds that has already elapsed.
Does that make sense? If not, I'd be happy to explain more. 
 Follow
 29
 24032016 19:01
(Original post by fablereader)
Ah, yes, that makes sense. I had to read it over a few times, but I got it. Thank you! 
fablereader
 Follow
 10 followers
 4 badges
 Send a private message to fablereader
 Thread Starter
Offline4ReputationRep: Follow
 30
 24032016 20:04
I'm unsure how to answer this problem. Could anyone help?
'A particle A is thrown vertically upwards from the bottom of a tower. At the same instant a second particle, B, is dropped from the top of the tower. Given that when the particles collide they are travelling at the same speed, find the ratio between the distances they have travelled.' 
 Follow
 31
 24032016 23:42
(Original post by Zacken)
That makes much more sense, the way I originally thought of it was "Here's a situation that happens in a really weird field where the gravitation strength is irrelevant, but we're not going to tell you that, we'll only tell you that the distance fallen in the last second is this much" but your explanation makes much more sense, I originally did a double take when I first read the question; that'll teach me to trust my instincts more. Thanks! 
 Follow
 32
 24032016 23:56
(Original post by fablereader)
I'm unsure how to answer this problem. Could anyone help?
'A particle A is thrown vertically upwards from the bottom of a tower. At the same instant a second particle, B, is dropped from the top of the tower. Given that when the particles collide they are travelling at the same speed, find the ratio between the distances they have travelled.' 
fablereader
 Follow
 10 followers
 4 badges
 Send a private message to fablereader
 Thread Starter
Offline4ReputationRep: Follow
 33
 25032016 00:45
(Original post by atsruser)
You don't know the initial speed u of the lower particle, but you can express it in terms of the time taken t (which is the same for both particles) by equating the speeds of the particles after time t (use SUVAT to do so). Then eliminate u from another appropriate SUVAT eqn expressing s in terms of t. 
fablereader
 Follow
 10 followers
 4 badges
 Send a private message to fablereader
 Thread Starter
Offline4ReputationRep: Follow
 34
 25032016 21:40
I generally have difficulty with bearings. Now, before I start studying vectors, I need to really try to 'understand and use bearings to solve problems involving angles'. Could anyone help me with this problem, so I can better learn how to solve these kinds of problems?
'A boat sets off from a harbour at point O. It travels 7 km at a bearing of 140 degrees to a point A. The boat then travels to point B which is 3.5 km on a bearing of 260 degrees from point A. Find
a the bearing the boat should take to travel backt o the harbour in a straight line from B
b the distance of the homeward journey described in part a.
Could anyone help me understand bearings, with this problem as an example? 
 Follow
 35
 25032016 22:47
(Original post by fablereader)
I generally have difficulty with bearings. Now, before I start studying vectors, I need to really try to 'understand and use bearings to solve problems involving angles'. Could anyone help me with this problem, so I can better learn how to solve these kinds of problems?
'A boat sets off from a harbour at point O. It travels 7 km at a bearing of 140 degrees to a point A. The boat then travels to point B which is 3.5 km on a bearing of 260 degrees from point A. Find
a the bearing the boat should take to travel backt o the harbour in a straight line from B
b the distance of the homeward journey described in part a.
Could anyone help me understand bearings, with this problem as an example?
Now you should automatically convert any question about bearings into a question about triangles and geometry by drawing the required lines and points.
Draw a line 7 cm long at a bearing of 140, this will be in the fourth quadrant, starting from the origin. Label the end point A.
Now pretend A is your "north" so put your ruler facing the direction of A and rotate it 260 degrees. Then draw a line from A at an angle of 260 degrees away from A (so it should be pointing back inwards, kinda  you get me?) and it should be 3.5 cm long. 
fablereader
 Follow
 10 followers
 4 badges
 Send a private message to fablereader
 Thread Starter
Offline4ReputationRep: Follow
 36
 25032016 23:34
(Original post by Zacken)
Draw a standard Cartesian axes, north, west, south, east. Put your rule on the yaxis facing upwards. Whenever you are given a bearing, move the ruler clockwise (where x is the given bearing). So will make your rule lie on the xaxis pointing to the right. will make your bearing lie on the yaxis pointing downwards, etc...
Now you should automatically convert any question about bearings into a question about triangles and geometry by drawing the required lines and points.
Draw a line 7 cm long at a bearing of 140, this will be in the fourth quadrant, starting from the origin. Label the end point A.
Now pretend A is your "north" so put your ruler facing the direction of A and rotate it 260 degrees. Then draw a line from A at an angle of 260 degrees away from A (so it should be pointing back inwards, kinda  you get me?) and it should be 3.5 cm long. 
 Follow
 37
 25032016 23:43
(Original post by fablereader)
OK, I get it. I've drawn the lines and also deduced that angle OAB is 60 degrees (the external angle is 300, so 360  300 = 60). However, I'm not sure where to go from here. 
fablereader
 Follow
 10 followers
 4 badges
 Send a private message to fablereader
 Thread Starter
Offline4ReputationRep: Follow
 38
 25032016 23:51
(Original post by Zacken)
So now draw alone from B to the origin and find the angle between AB and OB, then from that, you can deduce the bearing that B needs to be able to go in a straight line from B to O. 
 Follow
 39
 26032016 00:06
(Original post by fablereader)
Thanks for the help! Got the right answers (a is 350 degrees, and b is 6.06 km). 
fablereader
 Follow
 10 followers
 4 badges
 Send a private message to fablereader
 Thread Starter
Offline4ReputationRep: Follow
 40
 26032016 15:22
I'm having trouble wtih a vector problem.
'The diagram shows a trapezium ABCD, with AB parallel to DC and AB twice as long as DC.
E is the midpoint of BC. AD> = p and DC> = q.
Find, in terms of p and q
a AB>
b AC>
c CD>
d DB>
e AE>
f ED>'
> signifies it is a translation instead of a distance. Unfortunately, I can't put in the diagram. I've solved ad (2q, p + q, q, 2q  p respectively), but I've stalled on e. Can anyone help?
Reply
Submit reply
Related discussions:
 Reformulating physics so more (or all) systems are 'solvable'
 I am disgusted today
 Edexcel Mathematics: Mechanics M2 (Not IAL)  16 Jun 2017 ...
 Edexcel Mathematics: Mechanics M3 6679 01  17 May 2017 ...
 PHYSICS G481 Mechanics paper MAY 20th 2014
 these are the topics i enjoyed , what uni course do they link to
 BMO Preparation 2017/18
 New maths and further maths A Levels
 UKMT Maths Competitions Thread
 EmilySarah00?s 2017/18 struggle to University (A*AA)
TSR Support Team
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
This forum is supported by:
 SherlockHolmes
 Notnek
 charco
 Mr M
 TSR Moderator
 Nirgilis
 usycool1
 Changing Skies
 James A
 rayquaza17
 RDKGames
 randdom
 davros
 Gingerbread101
 Kvothe the Arcane
 The Financier
 The Empire Odyssey
 Protostar
 TheConfusedMedic
 nisha.sri
 Reality Check
 claireestelle
 Doonesbury
 furryface12
 Amefish
 harryleavey
 Lemur14
 brainzistheword
 Rexar
 Sonechka
 LeCroissant
 EstelOfTheEyrie
 CoffeeAndPolitics
 an_atheist
 Moltenmo
Updated: June 7, 2016
Share this discussion:
Tweet