Physics question(s) regarding Accel vs Impulse vs Momentum inertia etc.

[squattinsquatch]

From EK physics book 1st 30 minute test.
My question is in regards to the passage about a guy being shot from a cannon. In the passage it says:

"the force on him while inside the cannon was so great that he would momentarily lose consciousness during the stunt"
he is shot at 53 degrees from horizontal, initial velocity 27 m/s.

So the first question/solution I am confused by is:
" From the information in the passage, which of the following factors most likely plays the greatest role in Zachini's loss of conciousness?
-->velocity, height, acceleration, or momentum

ANS: The passage says that it is the "propulsion" that causes the loss of conciousness. In other words, the force on Zacchini causes him to accelerate at a rate so great that he loses conciousness.

I think that something to do with inertia, or impulse would be a better answer assuming that his loss of conciousness is due to the blood temporarily flowing out of his head, or rather staying in place while his body begins accelerating. Is this line of thinking wrong?

Which would be the best answer if the possible answers were: inertia, momentum, impulse, or acceleration?

Any other thoughts, clarifications are much appreciated. I still am slightly confused by whether 'centrifugal' force in this case be attributed to inertia of the blood or the relation of an impulse being a temporary force over short time and whether to attribute the effects to the rapid change in acceleration in opposite direction, which in its equation form is equal to a change in momentum no?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DoctorInASaree]

Acceleration?

That James Bond movie and loss of consciousness to due too many gs comes to mind.

 

[Cawolf]

Like @DoctorInASaree said, it is due to the acceleration.

Think about it - we are all currently moving at somewhere around 465 m/s, even sitting at our desks! But do you feel it? No. Because you are not accelerating.

Moving at a constant velocity involves no forces - accelerating is due to a force acting upon a body (Newton's Second Law).

 

[squattinsquatch]

@DoctorInASaree Yeaaaa, so that basically describes what I am saying. But My thing is that the loss of conciousness is the The 'draining of the blood' from the head being due to the bloods inertia, like "centrifugal" or an apparent force acting on the blood. Of course this is due to acceleration being applied, but if not for this, then the blood would just remain as it was in the brain no? So while acceleration is the best answer for the question given with the study material, but which would you think is better answer between inertia/acceleration if those were the choices to pick from? It seems inertia would be better in this case to account for the loss of conciousness due to draining of blood?

 

[Cawolf]

I doubt you would be given a choice between inertia and acceleration, as they both answer the question.

Yes it is the inertia of the blood that makes it "lag" behind the accelerating brain, but without acceleration the inertia wouldn't really matter.

 

[squattinsquatch]

I feel like I'm asking a chicken or the egg question almost. the acceleration causes the body to move, and the blood to drain due to its non-fixed nature... but without the bloods tendency to stay where it is, the loss of conciousness would not occur

 

[squattinsquatch]

Thanks Cawolf. I suppose my question was poorly posed .

 

[Cawolf]

Yes. I think you are posing a hypothetical question that you will never see.

I think you have a strong enough grasp on the second and third law concepts to not worry about it so much!