Most likely an easy Integration problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter apchemstudent
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integration
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a differential equation related to the velocity of a skydiver after her parachute opens. The equation is given as dv/dt = -2v - 32, with an initial condition of v(0) = -50. Participants are tasked with finding an expression for v in terms of t, determining the terminal velocity, and calculating the time at which the skydiver reaches a speed of 20 feet per second.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore different methods of integrating the differential equation, questioning the placement of the constant C and the implications of negative velocity. Some express confusion over the integration process and the resulting expressions for v.

Discussion Status

There is ongoing exploration of the integration techniques and the resulting expressions for velocity. Some participants have offered insights into the correct placement of constants and the interpretation of negative values, but no consensus has been reached on the best approach or the correctness of the derived expressions.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the implications of initial conditions and the physical meaning of negative velocity in the context of the problem. There is also mention of the need to clarify integration limits and the handling of constants during integration.

apchemstudent
Messages
220
Reaction score
0
However, I am stuck on this problem

Let v(t) be the velocity, in feet per second, of a skydiver at time t seconds, t>=0. After her parachute opens, her velocity satisfies the differential equation dv/dt = -2v -32, with initial condition v(0) = -50.

A) Find an expression for v in terms of t, where t is measured in seconds.

well I have problems right from the start...
dv/(-2v-32) = dt
integrate both sides --> ln(-2v-32) = -2t
I solve for v and i got v = e^(-2t)/-2 - 16 + C

C = -33.5

However, i could also have done it like this

dv/(-2(v+16)) = dt
bring the -2 over and integrate it to get --> ln(v+16) = -2t
solve for v = e^(-2t) -16 + C

C = -35

Why are they different?! i must be doing something wrong...

b) Terminal velocity is defined as lim t->infinity v(t). Find the terminal velocity of the skydiver to the nearest foot per second.

well for the first equation i got
i get -49.5 feet per second, since the 1/infinity = 0

while the second one is -51 feet per second... which is most likely not correct.

c) It is safe to land when her speed is 20 feet per second. At what time t does she reach this speed?

well for both cases i got t = negative seconds. I really don't think this is right. Can some one please help me figure out my mistake? I am really lost thanks...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the first part, the constant C has to be added right after the integration. It ends up in the exponent and becomes a constant factor.
 
I think they meant the absolute value for the velocity...Negative time would be when he's still in the plane...

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
I think they meant the absolute value for the velocity...Negative time would be when he's still in the plane...

Daniel.

the negative velocity will work if the equation is like this

dv/(-2v - 32) = dt

integrate both sides --> ln(-2v-32)/-2 = t + c

-2v - 32 = e^(-2t - 2c)

v = e^(-2t - 2c) /-2 - 16


However the velocity will not work if it is like this
ln(v+16) = -2t + c
v = e^(-2t + c) - 16

Im really confused as to which one is the correct one... please help
 
No,there's one way to do this problem:
[tex]\int_{-50}^{v} \frac{dv}{-2v-32}=\int_{0}^{t}dt[/tex]

Solve this and tell me what u get...

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
No,there's one way to do this problem:
[tex]\int_{-50}^{v} \frac{dv}{-2v-32}=\int_{0}^{t}dt[/tex]

Solve this and tell me what u get...

Daniel.

alright, i get ln(-2v-32)/-2 = t + c

so (-2v-32) = e^(-2t - 2c)

v = e^(-2t - 2c)/-2 -16

is this correct? I am just wondering, why is it that if you bring out the -2 before you integrate it, you get a different answer?
I don't want to plug in 50 yet... i just want to find out why the equation is different as compared to my previous posts.
 
You did't do what i said,right...?Suit yourself.As for this issue,i believe StatusX gave the explanation...

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
You did't do what i said,right...?Suit yourself.As for this issue,i believe StatusX gave the explanation...

Daniel.

Well first of all, i don't understand the integration values completely yet (50 - 0 ?) We've only just started this as you see :-p ... Well i did what Status said, but i still don't get the same answer... Can anyone explain this?
 
That's integrating with "corresponding limits".At t=0,the v=-50 ([ms^{-1}]),at t=t,the v=v([ms^{-1}])...There's no big deal.It's much more simple than integrating indefinitely & then imposing conditions on the antiderivative...

Daniel.
 
  • #10
apchemstudent said:
alright, i get ln(-2v-32)/-2 = t + c

so (-2v-32) = e^(-2t - 2c)

v = e^(-2t - 2c)/-2 -16

is this correct? I am just wondering, why is it that if you bring out the -2 before you integrate it, you get a different answer?
I don't want to plug in 50 yet... i just want to find out why the equation is different as compared to my previous posts.
Your different answers are just due to errors in your solutions of the d.e. The answer is the same either way.

First way:
[tex]\begin{align*}\frac{dv}{2v+32} &= -dt \\<br /> \frac{1}{2}ln|2v+32| &= -t + c \quad \text{note: dv is not the deriv. of 2v}\\ <br /> ln|2v+32| &= -2t + c'\\<br /> 2v+32 &= e^{-2t + c'}\\<br /> &= Ce^{-2t}\\<br /> 2v &= Ce^{-2t} -32\\<br /> v &= \frac{1}{2}(Ce^{-2t} -32)\\<br /> -50 &= \frac{C}{2} -16 \\<br /> C &= -68 \\<br /> v &= \frac{1}{2}(-68e^{-2t} -32)\\<br /> v &= -34e^{-2t} -16 \end{align*}[/tex]


Second way:
[tex]\begin{align*}\frac{dv}{v+16} &= -2dt \\<br /> ln|v+16| &= -2t + c\\<br /> v+16 &= e^{-2t + c}\\<br /> &= Ce^{-2t}\\<br /> v &= Ce^{-2t} -16\\<br /> -50 &= C -16 \\<br /> C &= -34 \\<br /> v &= -34e^{-2t} -16 \end{align*}[/tex]
 
  • #11
I believe and hope it's all clear and u realize where you went wrong...

Daniel.
 
  • #12
dextercioby said:
I believe and hope it's all clear and u realize where you went wrong...

Daniel.

thank's gnome and dexter... it makes sense now. I didn't know that e^c can be just used as C.
 
  • #13
That's a standard trick...Once you get used to this type of integration,it will become obvious...

Daniel.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K