Ask question

Ask question

All categories

2 years ago

13

The path of a projectile launched from a 20-ft-tall tower is modeled by the equation y = -5x2 + 40x + 20. What is the maximum he

ight, in meters
reached by the projectile?

1 answer:

Otrada [13]2 years ago

3 0

Answer:

30.49 m

Step-by-step explanation:

To obtain the maximum height, we solve for the value x when dy/dx = 0.

Since, y = -5x² + 40x + 20

dy/dx = d[-5x² + 40x + 20]/dx

dy/dx = -10x + 40

Since dy/dx = 0,

-10x + 40 = 0

-10x = -40

x = -40/-10

x = 4

Substituting x = 4 into the equation for y, we have

y = -5x² + 40x + 20

y = -5(4)² + 40(4) + 20

y = -5(16) + 160 + 20

y = -80 + 160 + 20

y = 80 + 20

y = 100 ft

Since y is in feet, we convert to meters.

Since 1 m = 3.28 ft, 100 ft = 100 ft × 1 m/3.28 ft = 30.49 m

So, the maximum height, in meters reached by the projectile is 30.49 m

You might be interested in

PLS HELP DU TONIGHT! 25 POINTS!!

Nata [24]

Answer:

I think that the answer is A

Step-by-step explanation:

8 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Find the area of a segment formed by a chord 8" long in a circle with radius of 8"

AlekseyPX

$r=8\\\\P=\pi r^2\\\\P=\pi\cdot8^2=64\pi$

5 0

2 years ago

Need the answers for 3-5

nevsk [136]

Answer:

k12

Step-by-step explanation:

8 0

2 years ago

Please help, as soon as possible...

vodomira [7]

Answer:

1. a) Square

2. c) Rectangle

Step-by-step explanation:

1. If you cut this rectangular prism in way to be PERPENDICULAR to the base, that means you're cutting it straight down, from the top to the bottom, in a vertical line. The cross-section obtained will be just like an end of the prism, which in this case is a square. Because it's a regular rectangular prism, no matter where you cut it, as long as it's vertical, perpendicular to the base, you'll get a square due to this particular form. Technically, the answer could also be a rectangle, since a square is a rectangle.

2. you cut this rectangular prism in way to be PARALLEL to the base, that means you're cutting it straight, from the front to the back, in an horizontal line. The cross-section obtained will be just like an top of the prism, which in this case is a rectangle. Because it's a regular rectangular prism, no matter where you cut it, as long as it's an horizontal line, parallel to the base, you'll get a rectangle due to this particular form.

6 0

3 years ago

Lagrange multipliers have a definite meaning in load balancing for electric network problems. Consider the generators that can o

Ivahew [28]

Answer:

The load balance $(x_1,x_2,x_3)=(545.5,272.7,181.8)$ Mw minimizes the total cost

Step-by-step explanation:

<u>Optimizing With Lagrange Multipliers</u>

When a multivariable function f is to be maximized or minimized, the Lagrange multipliers method is a pretty common and easy tool to apply when the restrictions are in the form of equalities.

Consider three generators that can output xi megawatts, with i ranging from 1 to 3. The set of unknown variables is x1, x2, x3.

The cost of each generator is given by the formula

$\displaystyle C_i=3x_i+\frac{i}{40}x_i^2$

It means the cost for each generator is expanded as

$\displaystyle C_1=3x_1+\frac{1}{40}x_1^2$

$\displaystyle C_2=3x_2+\frac{2}{40}x_2^2$

$\displaystyle C_3=3x_3+\frac{3}{40}x_3^2$

The total cost of production is

$\displaystyle C(x_1,x_2,x_3)=3x_1+\frac{1}{40}x_1^2+3x_2+\frac{2}{40}x_2^2+3x_3+\frac{3}{40}x_3^2$

Simplifying and rearranging, we have the objective function to minimize:

$\displaystyle C(x_1,x_2,x_3)=3(x_1+x_2+x_3)+\frac{1}{40}(x_1^2+2x_2^2+3x_3^2)$

The restriction can be modeled as a function g(x)=0:

$g: x_1+x_2+x_3=1000$

Or

$g(x_1,x_2,x_3)= x_1+x_2+x_3-1000$

We now construct the auxiliary function

$f(x_1,x_2,x_3)=C(x_1,x_2,x_3)-\lambda g(x_1,x_2,x_3)$

$\displaystyle f(x_1,x_2,x_3)=3(x_1+x_2+x_3)+\frac{1}{40}(x_1^2+2x_2^2+3x_3^2)-\lambda (x_1+x_2+x_3-1000)$

We find all the partial derivatives of f and equate them to 0

$\displaystyle f_{x1}=3+\frac{2}{40}x_1-\lambda=0$

$\displaystyle f_{x2}=3+\frac{4}{40}x_2-\lambda=0$

$\displaystyle f_{x3}=3+\frac{6}{40}x_3-\lambda=0$

$f_\lambda=x_1+x_2+x_3-1000=0$

Solving for \lambda in the three first equations, we have

$\displaystyle \lambda=3+\frac{2}{40}x_1$

$\displaystyle \lambda=3+\frac{4}{40}x_2$

$\displaystyle \lambda=3+\frac{6}{40}x_3$

Equating them, we find:

$x_1=3x_3$

$\displaystyle x_2=\frac{3}{2}x_3$

Replacing into the restriction (or the fourth derivative)

$x_1+x_2+x_3-1000=0$

$\displaystyle 3x_3+\frac{3}{2}x_3+x_3-1000=0$

$\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}x_3=1000$

$x_3=181.8\ MW$

And also

$x_1=545.5\ MW$

$x_2=272.7\ MW$

The load balance $(x_1,x_2,x_3)=(545.5,272.7,181.8)$ Mw minimizes the total cost

5 0

3 years ago