I applied certain times, including 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, and so on, also including 3.95, my measured time of fall. After this, I used an approximate measure of speed of sound (343 m/s), and divided each distance by that speed to get a variable which I subtracted from my original time to get a new time. I then applied this new time to my original formula, and reiterated this process, until the difference between two consecutive distances was negligible. Applying the final distance, I divide both the original distance, and the distance with speed of sound by the distance in meters between floors, and graph the answers.
This graph shows the result.It can be seen from this graph that the result is negligible and does not explain the difference between the projected and measured height of the building.
2 comments:
1. I think this should be called Taking into account speed of sound and viscous drag
2. The graph for "viscous drag" should also have a label "fall in vacuum"
3. Two horizontal lines could be added to show actual hight (15 floors) and the "theoretical hight" (~30 floors)
Another note: the iterative way how you determined the speed of sound correction is reminiscent of IFS - iterative function systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterated_function_system
They lead to fractals!
Post a Comment