Solving a Rocket Sled Problem: Acceleration, Velocity and Time

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving a physics problem related to a rocket sled's deceleration due to water resistance. Participants explore the equations of motion, the relationship between velocity and distance, and the calculation of time required to decelerate to a specific speed. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and technical explanations related to differential equations and integration.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the problem and expresses difficulty in finding a way to incorporate time into the equations after deriving velocity as a function of distance, v(x) = 150e^(-u*x).
  • Another participant suggests using the integral t = ∫(dx/v(x)) to find time, but this is met with skepticism regarding its validity.
  • Some participants argue about the correctness of the formulas provided, with one asserting that the initial advice was erroneous and questioning the validity of the derived expressions.
  • There is a discussion about whether it is possible to find v(x) without first determining v(t) and x(t), leading to differing opinions on the approach to solving the problem.
  • One participant defends their method, stating that integrating the inverse of velocity over distance should yield the correct time, while others challenge the mathematical rigor of the approach.
  • Disagreements persist about the interpretation of the equations and the implications of switching variables in the integration process.
  • Some participants acknowledge that despite the debate over methods, the results obtained by different approaches match, raising questions about the necessity of strict adherence to one method.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the methods discussed. There are multiple competing views regarding the correct approach to solving the problem, and the discussion remains unresolved with ongoing debate about the mathematical correctness of the proposed solutions.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the assumptions underlying the integration methods and the dependence on variable definitions. There are unresolved questions about the implications of using v(x) versus v(t) in the context of the problem.

Suicidal
Messages
22
Reaction score
1
I am having trouble with the following problem:

A rocket sled having an initial speed of 150mi/hr is slowed by a channel of water. Assume that, during the braking process, the acceleration a is given by a(v)=-u*v^2, where v is the velocity and u is constant.

a) write the equations of motion in terms of v and x

b) if it requires a distance of 2000 ft to slow the sled to 15 mi/hr, determine the value of u

c) Find the time required to slow the sled to 15 mi/hr


I’m having trouble with part c) because I can’t find a way to get time into the experesion.

In part b I found v(x)=150e^(-u*x) but I don’t know where to go with this to find time

I would really appreciate some help

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
[tex]t=\int dt = \int \frac{dx}{dx/dt} = \int \frac{dx}{v(x)}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
thanks a lot for the hit. It was what i needed to solve the problem
 
You have no reason to thank him for.He gave you the erroneous formula for the solving...

[tex]\frac{dv(t)}{dt}=-u v^{2}(t)[/tex]

Can u find the v(t)...??Then integrate and find x(t).

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
You have no reason to thank him for.He gave you the erroneous formula for the solving...

[tex]\frac{dv(t)}{dt}=-u v^{2}(t)[/tex]

Can u find the v(t)...??Then integrate and find x(t).

Daniel.

This was not the intention of the question. First he had to rewrite the DE in terms of v and x, and then solve for v(x) not v(t). He already did that and now for part c) has to find the time using his results of a and b. And the formula I gave him was not erroneous!
 
And how would you determine [itex]v(x)[/itex],without knowing [itex]v(t)[/itex] and [itex]x(t)[/itex] ??

Daniel.
 
da_willem said:
[tex]t=\int dt = \int \frac{dx}{dx/dt} = \int \frac{dx}{v(x)}[/tex]

Please explain the last step of your equation...Why is it [itex]v(x)[/itex] instead of [itex]v(t)[/itex] ...?? :rolleyes:

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
And how would you determine [itex]v(x)[/itex],without knowing [itex]v(t)[/itex] and [itex]x(t)[/itex] ??

Daniel.

a) write the equations of motion in terms of v and x
b) if it requires a distance of 2000 ft to slow the sled to 15 mi/hr, determine the value of u

And he succeeded; he got as a result:

In part b I found v(x)=150e^(-u*x)

It was all in his post!
 
Well,the issue remains...Your advice was wrong...And naturally it couldn't have lead to any VALID result...

Daniel.
 
  • #10
dextercioby said:
Please explain the last step of your equation...Why is it [itex]v(x)[/itex] instead of [itex]v(t)[/itex] ...?? :rolleyes:

Daniel.

Because he calculated v(x) and not v(t) you can't use:

[tex]x(t)=\int v(t) dt[/tex]

And since he has v(x) he can use the definition of velocity v=dx/dt so dt=dx/v and integrate.
 
  • #11
dextercioby said:
Well,the issue remains...Your advice was wrong...And naturally it couldn't have lead to any VALID result...

Daniel.

Why is the formula I gave him not valid?
 
  • #13
You can easily see the validity of:

[tex]t=\int dt = \int \frac{dx}{dx/dt} = \int \frac{dx}{v(x)}[/tex]

By writing it using a Riemann sum. On every interval dx the amount of time it takes him is inversely proportional to the velocity, which he obtained a s a function of x. Summing over all intervals dx gives him the total time.

He already solved the DE to find v(x), so now he can use v(x) instead of v(t).

Try it your way and see if you get the same result...
 
  • #14
The integrands are:
[tex]\frac{dx}{\frac{dx(t)}{dt}} =\frac{dx}{v(t)}[/tex]

Not v(x).

Daniel.

P.S.There's no need Riemann sum whatsoever.
[tex]v(t)=\frac{dx}{dt}[/tex]=>what I've written above,which of course is an enormity...

P.P.S.The correct integration would be
[tex]\int dx=\int v(t)dt[/tex]
which would give u x(t),knowing v(t)...
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Ofcourse solving the DE for v(t) is also an option, but not the intention of the question. He already solved the the DE for v(x). Now if somebody asked:

I have a relation which gives the velocity at a point x namely: [tex]v(x)=150e^{-ux}[/tex] where u is known. I want to know the time it takes to go from x=0 to some given point [itex]x_1[/itex]. How do I do this?

Then the answer is [tex]t=\int_0 ^{x_1} \frac{dx}{v(x)}[/tex]. Or why not?!
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Well...?
 
  • #17
da_willem said:
Ofcourse solving the DE for v(t) is also an option, but not the intention of the question. He already solved the the DE for v(x). Now if somebody asked:



Then the answer is [tex]t=\int_0 ^{x_1} \frac{dx}{v(x)}[/tex]. Or why not?!

Because it's wrong...Forget about the definite integral.Let's discuss variables in the differentials
U're saying that
[tex]dt=\frac{dx}{v(x)}[/tex]
.Is that right,or am missing something...?? :rolleyes:

Daniel.
 
  • #18
Well maybe that's mathematically not so nice. But given v(x) wouldn't the expression I advised the OP to use work?!
 
  • #19
It's not "mathematically nice",because it's mathematically incorrect.
From what u've considered,by switching fractions,u'd get
[tex]v(x)=\frac{dx}{dt}[/tex]

which is incorrect...

Daniel.

P.S.So i was right all along,eh...?From my first message i asserted the advice was wrong and hence useless...
 
  • #20
Why isn't this correct? dx/dt is the definition of velocity and he happens to have v as a function of x, not t. And why is the formula I gave him wrong? Is the result he gets for t incorrect? [So is the formula I gave him indeed useless?!]
 
  • #21
How about if i told you that the 2 sides of the equation depend on different variables??
"x" in the left and "t" in the right...They ought to be constant then,right??

Daniel.
 
  • #22
Well you keep avoiding my question: Is the result he gets for t incorrect?

I'm not a mathematician. I'm educated to be an engineer and lots of em fumbble with differentials like they're just numbers. So maybe my 'derivation' was pretty messy, but what about the result?!
 
  • #23
I cannot answer the question on HOW THE ORIGINAL POSTER CAME UP WITH THE RESULT...He does...

Daniel.

P.S.Are u implying that an incorrect method would lead to a correct result...??
 
  • #24
He claimed to already have found an expression for v(x) somehow. Then can't you find the time it takes to go from some point to another by evaluating the integral:

[tex]t=\int \frac{dx}{v(x)}[/tex]

?! And now just try to answer this simple question...
 
  • #25
Or is this one too hard to answer? You could PM it to me if you like.
 
  • #26
All this time i did the calculations (all of them) on both ways...They match...Do you see why??Your formula is still not correct,though,it lacks something...

Daniel.
 
  • #27
Aha, so my equation wasn't so "wrong" after all. It yielded the correct result :smile: And ofcourse it should. Putting aside the mathematics isn't it totally obvious intuitivly, physically why integrating the inverse of the velocity over a distance yields the time to cover this distance? So your comment on my post instead of 'useless, and incorrect' should have been: 'well ofcourse using that formula in combination with v(x) leads to the correct result but your 'derivation' isn't that neat'.
 
  • #28
Your formula should have stated:
[tex]\int dt =\int\frac{dx}{v(t(x))}[/tex]

which is different from what u've written...They're basically the same function of "x",but mine explicitely says that the "x" explicit dependence is achived implicitely...

Daniel.
 
  • #29
dextercioby said:
Your formula should have stated:
[tex]\int dt =\int\frac{dx}{v(t(x))}[/tex]

which is different from what u've written...They're basically the same function of "x",but mine explicitely says that the "x" explicit dependence is achived implicitely...

Daniel.

You could have said that right away, then I would have agreed, then this thread wouldn't have lasted 28 posts (29 now). So in the futue please don't be so 'mierenneukerig' (I don't know the English word for it) and just correct things instead of saying it's total nonsense...Thanks...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K