There was some fancy equation (but pretty simple), but you could probably do it via intuition and knowledge of what gravity is.
Or, as DTBK said, graph it. I loved Kinematics back when I was going over this two years ago, though. It was simple, easy to imagine and followed obvious rules. It was easy to see when you need it. Not like kilowatts and stuff. I already forgot all of that circuitry
.
Most engineering is based upon Ohm's law, or at least fluid mechanics is. Plus, it's not hard to remember PIE and EIR.
Lies. The problem never specified that there was no horizontal (x) velocity.
Exactly.
"Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman - do we have to call the Gentleman a gentleman if he's not one?"
There was some fancy equation (but pretty simple), but you could probably do it via intuition and knowledge of what gravity is.
Or, as DTBK said, graph it. I loved Kinematics back when I was going over this two years ago, though. It was simple, easy to imagine and followed obvious rules. It was easy to see when you need it. Not like kilowatts and stuff. I already forgot all of that circuitry
.
Most engineering is based upon Ohm's law, or at least fluid mechanics is. Plus, it's not hard to remember PIE and EIR.
Lies. The problem never specified that there was no horizontal (x) velocity.
Exactly.
So water entrance speed is undefined, because the diver will just hit the platform and stop. Vertical asymptote when acceleration = -1.5
Unless if you're factoring in terminal velocities and variable drag, you don't need physics., you need calculus.(i think?)
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 11 2008, 10:14 pm by Jello-Jigglers.
None.
To me it's a pretty simple physics problem that one learns to do in their first year of physics. I don't know what you guys are talking about and why you're talking about it.
None.
Centreri
