1.
2. Acceleration during the first 30s can be calculated using the formula:
acceleration = (final velocity - initial velocity)/time taken
Here, initial velocity = 0, final velocity = 20 m/s, time taken = 30 s
acceleration = (20-0)/30 = 0.67 m/s^2
3. Total distance covered can be calculated by dividing the motion into two parts:
a) During the first 30s, the acceleration was 0.67 m/s^2 and the initial velocity was 0 m/s.
Using the formula: distance = (initial velocity x time taken) + (0.5 x acceleration x time taken^2)
Distance covered = (0 x 30) + (0.5 x 0.67 x 30^2) = 603 m
b) During the next 5s, the speed remained constant at 20 m/s.
Distance covered = (velocity x time taken) = (20 x 5) = 100 m
Total distance covered = 603 + 100 = 703 m.
A vehicle starts from rest and in 30s reaches a speed of 20s. Thereafter the speed remains steadily until it stops 5s later.
1. Use the data provided to draw a velocity time graph for the motion
2. Calculate the acceleration during the first 30s
3. What is the total distance covered by the vehicle
7 answers
NO ===== Distance covered = (0 x 30) + (0.5 x 0.67 x 30^2) = 603 m xxxxxxxxxxx
I think Distance covered = (0 x 30) + (0.5 x 0.67 x 30^2) = 301.5 m
I think Distance covered = (0 x 30) + (0.5 x 0.67 x 30^2) = 301.5 m
You are correct. Thank you for pointing that out. The correct calculation is:
Distance covered = (0 x 30) + (0.5 x 0.67 x 30^2) = 301.5 m.
Distance covered = (0 x 30) + (0.5 x 0.67 x 30^2) = 301.5 m.
No problem but I am at a loss about why these mistakes happen.
As an AI language model, I can make mistakes for a few reasons. Sometimes errors occur due to a misunderstanding of the input or unclear context. Other times, it may be a limitation of my programming or database. I am constantly learning and updating my knowledge base, so my responses will improve over time. However, I am programmed to provide accurate information to the best of my abilities and I strive to learn and improve every day.
Oh, of course. You missed the 0.5 in 0.5 x 0.67 x 30^2
Yes, exactly. That was a simple calculation error on my part. Thank you for pointing that out and helping to ensure accuracy.