Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    For the paper below, in question 12d, they use energy considerations to solve the problem but why could you use SUVAT with s=139m u=57 v=? a=-9.8

    In the examiners report it says Centres should note that equations of motion are for use on rectilinear motion andtherefore energy conservation should be used to answer part (d) but im not sure what this means and why SUVAT can't be applied here.


    http://qualifications.pearson.com/co...e_20100128.pdf - Paper

    http://qualifications.pearson.com/co...1001_Stand.pdf - Mark Scheme

    http://qualifications.pearson.com/co...f_20100310.pdf - Examiner's report
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by runny4)
    For the paper below, in question 12d, they use energy considerations to solve the problem but why could you use SUVAT with s=139m u=57 v=? a=-9.8

    In the examiners report it says Centres should note that equations of motion are for use on rectilinear motion andtherefore energy conservation should be used to answer part (d) but im not sure what this means and why SUVAT can't be applied here.


    http://qualifications.pearson.com/co...e_20100128.pdf - Paper

    http://qualifications.pearson.com/co...1001_Stand.pdf - Mark Scheme

    http://qualifications.pearson.com/co...f_20100310.pdf - Examiner's report
    Whilst SUVAT will give you the correct answer, the justification is not straightforwards. The equations you'd be writing down would look like this:

     v^2 = u^2 + 2as with a = -g

    But that doesn't desecribe what's going on! since SUVAT is only for cases when the motion is in a straight line, this appears to be modelling what happens if you start to travel straight up, having an initial vertical velocity equal to your current horizontal velocity. It is not clear at all whether this will give the correct speed since it is not, in fact, what happens.

    In fact, the only simple justification I can think of of using SUVAT would have to use energy arguments, and by that point you may as well do the calculation correctly.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    It actually does come out to the same calculation but as the above user said, rectilinear motion is motion in a straight line which this is not.

    Our energy conservation argument neglects any of the movement around the curve at the top since it only considers height and Ek so we can use it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    Whilst SUVAT will give you the correct answer, the justification is not straightforwards. The equations you'd be writing down would look like this:

     v^2 = u^2 + 2as with a = -g

    But that doesn't desecribe what's going on! since SUVAT is only for cases when the motion is in a straight line, this appears to be modelling what happens if you start to travel straight up, having an initial vertical velocity equal to your current horizontal velocity. It is not clear at all whether this will give the correct speed since it is not, in fact, what happens.

    In fact, the only simple justification I can think of of using SUVAT would have to use energy arguments, and by that point you may as well do the calculation correctly.
    Thank you- that was very well explained
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    Whilst SUVAT will give you the correct answer, the justification is not straightforwards. The equations you'd be writing down would look like this:

     v^2 = u^2 + 2as with a = -g

    But that doesn't desecribe what's going on! since SUVAT is only for cases when the motion is in a straight line, this appears to be modelling what happens if you start to travel straight up, having an initial vertical velocity equal to your current horizontal velocity. It is not clear at all whether this will give the correct speed since it is not, in fact, what happens.

    In fact, the only simple justification I can think of of using SUVAT would have to use energy arguments, and by that point you may as well do the calculation correctly.
    Sorry for renewing this old thread but i was thinking why can u use SUVAT for projectile motion because it is motion in a curve not a straight line
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by runny4)
    Sorry for renewing this old thread but i was thinking why can u use SUVAT for projectile motion because it is motion in a curve not a straight line
    Because you can deal with motion in orthogonal directions independantly. I.e. what's going on in x is not affected by what's going on in y.

    Spoiler:
    Show

    (Actually, this is a little confusing, as you don't actually even need an orthogonal basis. Newton's laws work perfectly well in any affine coordinate system i.e. those where the coordinate vectors stay the same)


    For a particle falling down a ramp however, the same point does not apply - if you try and resolve vertically and horizontally then the normal reaction will mess things up. If you try and resolve along the slope then your basis needs to rotate as you descend which messes up the independent motions a bit.

    This isn't the best explanation, sorry. I can't think of a convincing reason why rectilinear motions are independant beyond the fact that that's how vectors work, which isn't too satisfying.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    Because you can deal with motion in orthogonal directions independantly. I.e. what's going on in x is not affected by what's going on in y.
    Spoiler:
    Show

    (Actually, this is a little confusing, as you don't actually even need an orthogonal basis. Newton's laws work perfectly well in any affine coordinate system i.e. those where the coordinate vectors stay the same)

    For a particle falling down a ramp however, the same point does not apply - if you try and resolve vertically and horizontally then the normal reaction will mess things up. If you try and resolve along the slope then your basis needs to rotate as you descend which messes up the independent motions a bit.

    This isn't the best explanation, sorry. I can't think of a convincing reason why rectilinear motions are independant beyond the fact that that's how vectors work, which isn't too satisfying.
    ok thanks yeah i think i get it. basically vertical motion is in a straight line and horizontal is in a straight line but these are independent of each other so u can use suvat
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.