Two Trains: 500 km Apart in 2.549 Hours

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom McCurdy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Trains
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves two trains departing from the same station and moving in opposite directions, with the goal of determining the time it takes for them to be 500 km apart. The trains have different velocities, with one traveling at 120 km/hr and the other at 20 km/hr. There are discussions around the use of integrals and kinematic equations to solve the problem.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore various mathematical approaches, including the use of integrals and differential equations. Some express confusion about the setup of their integrals and the units involved. Others question the appropriateness of using kinematic equations given imposed constraints.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active with multiple participants sharing their attempts and questioning the validity of their methods. Some guidance has been offered regarding the correct setup of integrals, and there is acknowledgment of a potential misunderstanding in dimensional analysis. However, there is no explicit consensus on the best approach to take.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention constraints such as restrictions on using kinematic equations, which may influence their problem-solving strategies. There are also indications of confusion regarding the integration process and the dimensions of the terms involved.

Tom McCurdy
Messages
1,021
Reaction score
1
I am trying to help a friend through this problem

train problem - 2 trains going oposite direction leaving from same station - train A going 120 km/hr (velocity)
- train B going 20 km / hr / hr (acceler) Time when are they 500 km apar

What i did was

Trying to solve

[tex]500= \int_{0}^{t} (20x^2+120x)[/tex]

however when I put that into the solver I am getting negitive answers
with guess and check with the integral I cam out to around 2.549
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So then I guess you could do

[tex]500= \frac{20t^3}{3}+60t^2}-(\frac{20x^3}{3}+60x^2})[/tex]

[tex]500=\frac{20t^3}{3}+60t^2}[/tex]

but hmm when you solve that you still get negitive answers
What am I doing wrong
 
lol I just inserted the
[tex]\frac{20t^3}{3}+60t^2[/tex] into y1
then 500 into y2
find where they intersect
it should be 2.54841

[edit--- this is wrong]
 
Last edited:
Can someone please show me why I can't go back and do basic math??
 
I know you can solve it with .5*20*x^2+120x=500 but the thing I don't get is why you reduce the dimensions of the original equations when putting it under the integral
 
Set up a differential equation

[tex]x^{\prime \prime} (t) = 20 \frac{\mbox{km}}{\mbox{h}^2}[/tex]

with ICs [tex]x^\prime (0) = 120 \frac{\mbox{km}}{\mbox{h}}, \ x(0) = 0[/tex] and solve for [itex]x(t)[/tex]. Once you've done that, just plug in [itex]x(t_0) = 500 \mbox{km}[/itex] and solve for [itex]t_0[/itex].[/itex]
 
Last edited:
The reason that your integral didn't work is that it is set up wrong. Why would you integrate distance (although your integrand isn't quite distance either, but it's close enough for me! :smile:) to get distance?

If you want it illustrated more clearly that your method doesn't work, then just tell me:What are the units of your [tex]\left(20 \frac{\mbox{km}}{\mbox{h}^2}\right)t^3[/tex] term? Do they match the units of [itex]500 \mbox{km}[/itex]?
 
Last edited:
Tom McCurdy said:
What i did was

Trying to solve

[tex]500= \int_{0}^{t} (20x^2+120x)[/tex]
Don't know why you are integrating (instead of just using kinematics equations), but this is the integral you want:
[tex]500= \int_{0}^{t} (20t +120) dt[/tex]

Time is in hours, of course.
 
Last edited:
Time to nitpick:

To clean up notation, you should actually use

[tex]\int_0^t (20s + 120) ds[/tex]

or some other random variable instead of [itex]s[/itex]
~
 
  • #10
Thanks... yeah I got that now... I had added an extra dimension for no reason. And I agree the kinematic equations work much easyier but he wasn't allowed to do it. We got what we think is the right answer now of [tex]\sqrt{86}-6[/tex]
 

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
10K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
3K