Ask your own question, for FREE!
Mathematics 13 Online
OpenStudy (anonymous):

PLz answer question asap includes formula

OpenStudy (anonymous):

OpenStudy (anonymous):

do u understand question

OpenStudy (anonymous):

i need help asap

OpenStudy (anonymous):

does anyone know how to do it at lest

OpenStudy (anonymous):

if it gives you all the info just try plugging them into the formula. Now if you will excuse me i will be back after i'm done eating. when either you will have solved this question or someone else has helped you.

OpenStudy (noelgreco):

The question includes a formula, but that won't solve the problem directly. Try this: \[v _{f}^{2} = v _{i}^{2} + 2gh\] The velocity of the left side is the final velocity, the one on the right the initial velocity. g = -32ft/s^2. h is the max ht if vsub f equals 0.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

what is the small f and i

OpenStudy (anonymous):

what do u mean by s^2

OpenStudy (anonymous):

i still need help

OpenStudy (shane_b):

small f = final...small i = initial

OpenStudy (anonymous):

so how could i figure this question out

OpenStudy (anonymous):

the question is in a attachment

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Someone help me solve this equation

OpenStudy (anonymous):

OpenStudy (anonymous):

wootwoot

hero (hero):

Hint: g = 32 h = 0 v = 61 input and solve for t

OpenStudy (anonymous):

do i use the current furmula they gave me in the math problem

hero (hero):

Um, let me think for a minute......YES OF COURSE! :D

OpenStudy (anonymous):

what do i put for t

hero (hero):

You don't put anything for t. You solve for t.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

or do i just leave it alone

hero (hero):

Do you know what it means to solve for a variable?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

yeah

OpenStudy (anonymous):

H=-1/2 32t^2+61t+0

OpenStudy (shane_b):

That's not solving it for t :/ You should end up with "t=...."

OpenStudy (anonymous):

plz help shane what do i do

OpenStudy (zzr0ck3r):

what class is this for?

OpenStudy (zzr0ck3r):

what is the vertex for the porabola?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

this is for algebra

OpenStudy (zzr0ck3r):

I dont understand why people are saying solve for t, you need to find the vertex. do you know how to do this?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

some show me how to solve this step by step

OpenStudy (shane_b):

If it's for algebra I would just graph it and determine the max height of the graph using a trace.

OpenStudy (shane_b):

but I'm generally lazy...

OpenStudy (anonymous):

?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

this is the question

OpenStudy (zzr0ck3r):

vertex = -b/2a this will give you a value for t, then plug in that value

OpenStudy (anonymous):

i dont know how to figure that out

OpenStudy (zzr0ck3r):

vertex = -v/(2(-1/2*g) what does this equa?

OpenStudy (zzr0ck3r):

so -v/-g = v/g = 61/32 now plug in (61/32) into your formula with the given value for v and g

OpenStudy (anonymous):

im so counfused

OpenStudy (anonymous):

You guys are overloading her with methods to solve the same problem/

OpenStudy (shane_b):

From start to finish: Solve for t as we were trying to get you to do. To do that all you need to do is solve this quadratic for t: \[0=-16t^2+61t+0\]Use the quadratic formula or wolfram to see what t will be: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Solve+for+t%3A+0%3D-16t^2%2B%2861%29t Once you have t, half of t will be the point at which the height is at max. So plug (1/2)t back into the original equation and solve for H. That's it.

OpenStudy (zzr0ck3r):

(-1/2)*g*t^2 + vt = (-1/2)*61*(61/32)^2 + 32(61/32) = 58.140

OpenStudy (anonymous):

is that the answer

OpenStudy (anonymous):

zzrock is that the answer

OpenStudy (shane_b):

Yes...that's the answer. About 58ft...

OpenStudy (anonymous):

is the nearest tenth 58.10

OpenStudy (shane_b):

Yes

OpenStudy (anonymous):

yay thank u guys sooooooooooooooooooo much

OpenStudy (shane_b):

If you know how to use a graphing calculator you could have just graphed and had it tell you the max. 20 seconds of effort...again, I'm lazy :)

OpenStudy (shane_b):

@zzr0ck3r: Finding the vertex of the parabola was definitely simpler but I guess we all just defaulted to finding t first and then solving for h.

OpenStudy (zzr0ck3r):

yeah I hear ya. This is the way I learned to do it without calculus. Just because someimtes the way down and the way up are not the same distance, so the solve for t method would not work so great.

Can't find your answer? Make a FREE account and ask your own questions, OR help others and earn volunteer hours!

Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!
Can't find your answer? Make a FREE account and ask your own questions, OR help others and earn volunteer hours!

Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!