Does zero to 60MPH in one Second equal 88 feet in one Second?? If not and a car can go from zero to 60MPH in one second then what is total Number of feet covered in that Sec.?? Is there a FORMULA???
Thank you ALL!!!

 

if you think logically theres gota be a formula or a shortest distance in feet to get 60 miles an hour for 1 second you know? i dont know the formula but theres gota be one.....

 

Well 60 mph is equal to 88 ft/s.

so chunk that in the equation that says

final_velocity = initial_velocity + Accel*time

That tells us we need a constant accel of 88 ft/s^2 to get to 88 ft/s in one sec.

Take that accel and put it into the equation that says

Change in distance = initial_velocity*time + 1/2*accel*time^2

That tells us that it'll cover 44 ft in that time.

So 44 ft.

David

 

also, some other equations in addition to what Black 91 z28 gave that can help out for such problems.
final velocity^2=initial velocity^2+2*acceleration*distance
These all assume that acceleration is constant, which sadly isnt always the case in real life. This is called jerk motion, and requires some calculus. Also other things like friction, slipage, etc. can be fun :lala:

 

i hated integrals!

 

There is not specific formula to tell you what the shortest possible distance to attain 60mph is, because there is no limit to that value. the more power you have, the faster you can get there. iF you had a highpowered jet on a light dragster (which there are alot of) if you pushed the turbine up high enough and let it rip i bet it gets to 60 in alot less than 44 feet. anyways, if acceleration or power are a known quantity then it would be possible to determine the shortest possible distance that you could reach 60mph. However, that answer would be only under those conditions. the more power (therefore acceleration) is available, the less distance and time it takes to reach a given speed.

 

but there has to be a fastest time , because u cant go into negative feet, by that you could make an equation

 

exactly...the fastest time is zero feet meaning instanteous acceleration (which is impossible) but what your talking about isnt a linear function. Its a limit as X approaches zero....the values would get progressively smaller by a progressively smaller amount.....there is some calculus involved. therefore the value approaches zero but never actually gets there

 

Nicely put Basically it will get closer and closer to zero untill you factor other things such as newtonian physics. You can only go as fast as a little bit less then the speed of light, and by then youd have a vehicle so massive (using conventional technology of course) that your amount of friction would be staggering Don't forget, the tires we use have only so much grip before they give out. You think those 4000horsepower dragsters are at their limit? They could easily go a few more thousand horsepower, but other factors such as clutch and tire technology prevent all that power getting to the ground

 

FYI: Top Fuel dragsters hit 60mph before 60 feet - typically run .8 or so to 60', they are probably going about 80mph by 60 feet.

 

im totally confused

 

DAMN YOU SMART PEOPLE!!

 

too many variables...you can't just apply a linear equation to a dynamic property like acceleration...


why does it matter? seems like a massive PITA...

:hail: math (that I never excelled in)

 

FWIW I know that the acceleration wouldn't be linear and would infact require some calculus. I didn't think there was enough info to bust out the calculus on it. But I do agree that the limit to the acceleration would be instantaneous and that it happens to be impossible.

Never the less, as Crashstitches said there are too many variables to use a linear equation. The math I did would assume some object in space getting a linear acceleration over a time of 1 second.

I suppose though that you could time your car to reach speeds say every 5 mph increase. From that you could curve fit it to get an equation of velocity as a function of speed. You could then differentiate it to get the acceleration. Then you could take your curve fit equation and integrate it and apply the boundary condition of at time=0 distance=0 and find your position. But I have a feeling this is a little more complicated than what you want.

David

 

What's going on? I wish I knew about this stuff, maybe one day :sigh: :lala:

~Matt

 

Theres only so fast you can travel a distance without losing time to loss of traction, especially when it comes to conventional engines.

 

ok guys....let me simplify this to the max for ya......

If you were trying to determine the fastest possible distance a certain individual car could get to sixty....thats easy if you have all the information to eliminate unknown variables.

However, it is basically impossible to determine the ultimate shortest distance to acclerate to 60mph for all objects in general. It would be damn close to zero for a photon or other quantum particles.

 

My point exactly.

 

Actually a quantum particle could go to any location instantly accoarding to quantum physics

 

i'm still lost. I'm just going to stop reading this post before i have an anuerism.

~Matt

 

actually i think the shortest distance for 0 to 60 would be based mostly on just the tires used.

you want a static coefficient of friction, so lets say that there is no wheel spin. which basically comes down to how much power is applied.

we can then find out the maximum amount of power/torque that the tires can handle without spinning.

if we simplify it even more, we put in a 502 big block with a flat torque curve, and only one gear. or a CVT on an engine held at one rpm setting to keep power constant. then you can kinda have constant acceleration.

so if we have constant power, and static friction at the wheels, we can then somewhat determine the fastest time that we can have. minus air resistance and real world stuff.

then again, maybe not

later

andrew

 

or if we ever find tachyons. then we can have instantaneous acceleration

 

The calculations can be made but like it was said. Too many variables to waste our times trying to figure it all out. Stuff like friction isn't that hard to determine so long as it's common knowledge that the vehicle weight is constant that the engine torque at the wheels was measured and graphed out vs rpm. Stuff like trans slipping, heat energy loss calculations blah blah blah, it would all be estimations BUT it could be done and probably within a couple feet of a good guestimation.
I just got down with statics final so this isn't all that hard, it's just why, lol!

 

Just figure it out this way...mod your car to where it 0-60's in one second, and then measure how far you went.

Surprised you guys didn't think of that.

 

Nope, quantum particles dont exibit instanteous acceleration...but even if they did, they arent cars lol. If they did exhibit instanteous acceleration there would be no need for giant particle ACCELERATORS in order to study them.

and the tachyon thing....come one dude lol

 

I didn't say they had instantenous acceleration, but subatomic particles can instantly change location, accoarding to the heisenberg (sp) uncertainty principle

 

good ole' heisenberg

WOO HOO LAST DAY OF CLASS

 

dude honestly your an idiot. you need to actually read the heisenberg uncertainty principle if you wanna talk about it. i QUOTED it earlier in the thread....it has absolutely nothing to do with being able to change location.

in case you missed it....here it is again

"you cannot simultaneously know the location and the speed of a particle"

It is also an integral part of the special theory of relativity, which would be totally meaningless if anything could change location instantly. In order for a particle to change location instantly, it would have to have instantaneous velocity. that means it has infinite acceleration. its imposible. Go read up on your particle physics and come back and talk to me

your welcome

 

simply put no form of matter can change location instantly or the laws of physics wouldnt apply

 

or would they......

 

we need a physics lawyer in here.

 

what if we were in the fifth dimension???

or on planet X

 

i am the physics lawyer....ive been studying this stuff for a long time....because i had to in school, and because it interests me
lol:lala:

 

If you're a physics lawyer, have you won a case yet?

The laws of classical physics, perhaps. In the quantum world particles can and do change location instantaneously on occasion, this is what makes such things as the electron-tunneling microscope and spontaneous nuclear decay possible.

 

once again....you people need to read the ENTIRE theory when looking into this stuff, not the digested highlights. There is what is an apparent instantaneous change of location in some cases....but thats not what it really is, it only seems that way. Try reading the entire theory of relativity and special theory of relativity and you should see what i mean.

 

I am quite familiar with the general and special theories of relativity, I've taken (and passed ) entire courses on them while I was an undergraduate. What do they have to do with a discussion of quantum effects? If instantaneous change in location isn't possible, how do you explain asymptotes in the quantum orbitals of an electron for example?

 

I don't know if it was covered or not b/c I'm to lazy to check


but you can't really make a formula to find out how many feet are covered without having a lot of info



lets say for instance that the car hits 55mph within 1 second then takes another 6 seconds to hit 60


or on the other end of the scale car hits 55 mph in 6 seconds and then takes another second to hit 60

as you can see the first one covered more ground being that he was going faster for a longer time....

but they both hit 60 at the same time just not the same distance

 

What are you guys talking about 3rd gen owners aren't supposed to know anything physics We're just supposed to shoot stuff, drink beer, and have ******s. :lala: :lala:

 

damn canadians....

anyways, if instantaneous changes of location were possible then absolutely all of the relativity is junk and is completely worthless, and its obviously not. as i said before, there can be an apparent change of location, but it is only that, apparent. If it were possible for a particle to change location instantly everything we know about physics would be junk. The thought that it can happen is an assumption to understand something that we dont otherwise have an explanation for.

 

It does happen, it's not an intellectual crutch, and it doesn't mean that relativity is junk.

It's sort of like the relationship that Newtonian mechanics have with relativistic mechanics. Newtonian mechanics is a perfectly good model as long as speeds don't exceed a small fraction of the speed of light, but it breaks down at high speeds and relativistic mechanics takes over.

Relativistic mechanics starts to break down over very small distances and quantum mechanics takes over. It doesn't mean relativity is junk, because relativity is still a perfectly good model for describing things on a macroscopic scale. When you start talking on a subatomic scale, you need quantum mechanics.

Sorry 92superram, maybe we're not supposed to know anything about physics, but I got my degree years before I bought the car. Purely an accident, I assure you.

 

Apeiron: Thanks for backing me up
383backinblack: There's no need to call me an idiot. I think its rather rude and I wouldn't do the same if you made a mistake about something.
Going with apeiron said, where do particle interferance patterns come from?
The theory of relativity and others are just that, theories. They are good working models for what they are designed for. Just because most of quantum physics violate newtonian physics, it doesn't mean we have to throw it out too.