mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Science & Technology

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-10-28, 23:55   #1
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

203008 Posts
Default true or false

could it ever be true that going down a steeper slope will get you going slower than a shallow slope for the same vertical distance. if you agree it's true can someone send it to mythbusters to test ? I don't know quite how to. though I might try to find adam savages email.
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-10-29, 11:30   #2
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

17·251 Posts
Default

I don't think it's possible. If you want to suggest it, you can by posting on this forum.
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-10-29, 11:45   #3
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"π’‰Ίπ’ŒŒπ’‡·π’†·π’€­"
May 2003
Down not across

37×281 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by science_man_88 View Post
could it ever be true that going down a steeper slope will get you going slower than a shallow slope for the same vertical distance. if you agree it's true can someone send it to mythbusters to test ? I don't know quite how to. though I might try to find adam savages email.
It is certainly possible if the two experiments are carried out in different places --- on the surface of the moon and the surface of the earth, for instance. If you want a purely terrestial experiment, immerse the steep slope in a high viscosity fluid and the shallow slope in one of low viscosity.

Paul
xilman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-10-29, 11:57   #4
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26×131 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mini-Geek View Post
I don't think it's possible. If you want to suggest it, you can by posting on this forum.
apparently I forgot that link lol I've bookmarked it now lol
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-05-04, 13:49   #5
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

20C016 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by science_man_88 View Post
could it ever be true that going down a steeper slope will get you going slower than a shallow slope for the same vertical distance. if you agree it's true can someone send it to mythbusters to test ? I don't know quite how to. though I might try to find adam savages email.
I think the reason I was thinking this is because the shallower slope although it seems counter intuitive that it would be faster it might be faster on the basis of the fact that to go down the same amount ( pull towards the center of the earth the same amount in equal time) the shallow slope has more distance to cover ( other factors include friction though).
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-05-04, 17:34   #6
wblipp
 
wblipp's Avatar
 
"William"
May 2003
New Haven

23·5·59 Posts
Default

Assuming you don't want to rig the results using methods such as those suggested by Xilman above, you are converting gravitational energy into kinetic energy. If there aren't any energy leaks (friction etc), then the speed must be the same.
wblipp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-05-04, 18:42   #7
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26×131 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wblipp View Post
Assuming you don't want to rig the results using methods such as those suggested by Xilman above, you are converting gravitational energy into kinetic energy. If there aren't any energy leaks (friction etc), then the speed must be the same.
13.869 angle 45
9.808 angle 89

using sine this is what I come up for for 9.80665 m drop on the opposite ( admittedlyd=v_i{t}+\frac {1}{2}at^2 doesn't give 9.80665 m in 1 second I know).

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2011-05-04 at 18:43
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-05-04, 19:01   #8
Zeta-Flux
 
Zeta-Flux's Avatar
 
May 2003

110000010112 Posts
Default

It also depends on what you mean by slope.

For example, your track could consist of two metal wires. The moving object could be two cones glued together. Then it can be the case that you can have your cones move "up" the track.
Zeta-Flux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-05-10, 01:48   #9
Christenson
 
Christenson's Avatar
 
Dec 2010
Monticello

5×359 Posts
Default

Guys:
There's also an assumption of linearity here...for example, if the thing going down the slope is a rock, and at the end of the slope there's a water surface, then, if the angle is too steep, the rock falls into the water. If it is shallower, then the rock will skip, and bounce back into the air with little loss of speed.

Similarly, at work we have a self-exciting brake circuit, that, basically, doesn't "catch" until a certain speed is reached. Get above that speed, you end up much slower than if you stayed just below it.
Christenson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-05-10, 12:37   #10
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

22×5×373 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wblipp View Post
Assuming you don't want to rig the results using methods such as those suggested by Xilman above, you are converting gravitational energy into kinetic energy. If there aren't any energy leaks (friction etc), then the speed must be the same.
Bzzt! With respect to the original question this is false.
If the surface is frictionless and the object falls through height 'h',
then its total velocity will be 'v' as given by mgh = 1/2 mv^2 where
m is the mass and g the force of gravity.

But part of that velocity will be vertical and part of it will be horizontal.
Total velocity will be independent of slope, but VERTICAL velocity will not
be. The question was about vertical velocity.

Thank you for playing.

If the slope has angle theta (with the ground), I suggest you resolve
the velocity into its horizontal and vertical components. (I assume you
know what a dot product is??? [actually, dot products can be avoided here].

You will find that as theta --> 0 (the slope becomes flat), the VERTICAL
velocity also goes to 0...... (Think about sin(x)).

I assume of course, a frictionless slope. If it is not, then one must also
compute the frictional force (ratio of vertical and horizontal force against
the surface of contact). This will have the effect of opposing 'g', the
force of gravity. And the frictional force will depend on the slope.

This is all simple high school physics.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-05-10, 12:58   #11
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26·131 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
Bzzt! With respect to the original question this is false.
If the surface is frictionless and the object falls through height 'h',
then its total velocity will be 'v' as given by mgh = 1/2 mv^2 where
m is the mass and g the force of gravity.

But part of that velocity will be vertical and part of it will be horizontal.
Total velocity will be independent of slope, but VERTICAL velocity will not
be. The question was about vertical velocity.

Thank you for playing.

If the slope has angle theta (with the ground), I suggest you resolve
the velocity into its horizontal and vertical components. (I assume you
know what a dot product is??? [actually, dot products can be avoided here].

You will find that as theta --> 0 (the slope becomes flat), the VERTICAL
velocity also goes to 0...... (Think about sin(x)).

I assume of course, a frictionless slope. If it is not, then one must also
compute the frictional force (ratio of vertical and horizontal force against
the surface of contact). This will have the effect of opposing 'g', the
force of gravity. And the frictional force will depend on the slope.

This is all simple high school physics.
I asked about a sloped with the same vertical height , I never remember learning this in the physics I took in high school. my argument was this assume we have a frictionless surface in that scenario to have the same vertical acceleration due to gravity the shallower slope makes the object falling have a longer distance to travel along the hypotenuse and hence have a higher velocity along the hypotenuse. with d={v_i}t +\frac{1}{2}at^2 at t one we have a drop of \frac{1}{2}g m given this same drop the shallower slope is faster along the hypotenuse.
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
April Fools Day stories, true and false cheesehead Lounge 15 2017-04-04 01:26
x^2 = 2 , is it true? Ale Miscellaneous Math 13 2016-01-03 13:55
True and false oracles. Mr. P-1 Puzzles 25 2013-02-19 20:44
True ignore lists? xilman Forum Feedback 1 2006-04-23 18:14
too good to be true? ixfd64 mersennewiki 5 2006-01-02 08:21

All times are UTC. The time now is 14:24.

Sat Dec 5 14:24:17 UTC 2020 up 2 days, 10:35, 0 users, load averages: 1.68, 1.59, 1.59

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.