more gay projectile (1 Viewer)

[shuning]

A projective is fired on top of a cliff 100m high. the projectile is fired at an angle of @ to teh horizontal with an initial velocity of 175ms and strikes the groud at a distance 700m from the base of the cliff..
find @

thx ^^

 

[jet]

Hope I'm right. Lot of calculation involved.

 

[shuning]

回复: Re: more gay projectile

the other solution... just cuz its 1 degree doesnt mean its invalid ^^

and i dont think its right.... i got something similar

 

[jet]

Re: 回复: Re: more gay projectile

the other solution... just cuz its 1 degree doesnt mean its invalid ^^

and i dont think its right.... i got something similar

That's meant to be a negative; -0.028, sorry.

What value did you take for g, could explain why they are different.

 

[GUSSSSSSSSSSSSS]

回覆: Re: 回复: Re: more gay projectile

well shuning wat the answer given? (if u have it)

cos i get a sort of similar answer....i approximated a lot tho lol

 

[shuning]

回复: 回覆: Re: 回复: Re: more gay projectile

it's from tutor..... no answer xD
and yea i used g = -10 too

 

[u-borat]

Re: 回覆: Re: 回复: Re: more gay projectile

yeah guys

you know what's gay projectile

kekekekekekekkekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekeke

 

[gurmies]

How's politics going xD

 

[shuning]

回复: Re: more gay projectile

? talking to u-boat? xD

 

[jet]

I didn't round at all, so maybe that's why.
How similar was your answer?

 

[shuning]

回复: Re: more gay projectile

I didn't round at all, so maybe that's why.
How similar was your answer?

x= 700
700 = 175tcos@
t=4sec@ --------> 1

y=-100
-100 = -5t^2 + 175tsin@ ------->2

sub 1 into 2

 

[GUSSSSSSSSSSSSS]

回覆: Re: more gay projectile

I didn't round at all, so maybe that's why.
How similar was your answer?

Fuck i cant find the paper that i wrote it on =[[[ so i cant tell u where i rounded off

however my answer was 80 degrees (cant remember the minutes)

 

[jet]

Re: 回复: Re: more gay projectile

x= 700
700 = 175tcos@
t=4sec@ --------> 1

y=-100
-100 = -5t^2 + 175tsin@ ------->2

sub 1 into 2

That's pretty much the same method as me, except that you haven't begun with the cartesian.