How is power proportional to acceleration?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between power and acceleration in a physics context, particularly when considering constant mass and distance. Participants explore how power is defined and its dependence on acceleration under various assumptions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants examine the original poster's formulation of power in relation to acceleration, questioning the validity of holding distance constant while discussing energy transfer. There are discussions about the implications of constant force and the definitions of distance and acceleration in the context of power calculations.

Discussion Status

The conversation is active, with participants providing differing perspectives on the original poster's reasoning. Some express skepticism about the assumptions made, while others attempt to clarify the definitions and relationships involved. There is no clear consensus, but various interpretations and critiques are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential misunderstandings regarding the terms used, such as "holding distance constant" and the implications of average power versus instantaneous power. The discussion highlights the need for precise definitions in the context of physics problems.

hola
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
The above scenario is when distance and mass are held constant. ~ denotes proportional to
My work:
P= m*a*d/t
P~ a/t

a~1/t^2 when m and d are held constant

so P~ a^3/2

Is this right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is important to say that you assumed a constant force. (what does 'd held constant' mean anyway?)

Personally, I don't see a flaw in your reasoning.

But wait 'til it gets approved or demolished by someone more knowledgeable before you start expecting your nobel prize.
 
Is this right?

Absolutely not. If you think that you can "hold d constant" and still have a non-zero energy transfer rate (power) then you don't even understand work. The error in your mathematics is the point when you say:

P= m*a*d/t

It should be:

P= m*a*(d(t)-d0)/(t-t0)

In other words, d should be "delta d" or "the change in d". But more importantly, on a physical level you are talking about transfering energy by accelerating in place, which is absurd.


"a~1/t^2 when m and d are held constant" This is mathematically laughable. Acceleration is the second derivative of position. If position is a constant, acceleration is zero.
 
Crosson: most people use "d" for distance, which is (x_f - x_i),
and it was pretty clear from the context.

Hola: your condition shows power proportional to a/t ,
(with fixed distance and mass). This is NOT proportional to a,
since the time to travel distance "d" is NOT the same for different P.
This is obvious since higher power run will have quicker acceleration
(your formulas presume CONTANT-ACCELERATION during each run)
By the way, this is *Average* power!
 
I'm not sure I see your point lightgrav. I'll rewrite hola's work with more precision. Asume an object of mass m at rest at t_0 = 0 acted on my a constant force F, from which results an acceleration a. Then, after a time t', the object has traveled a distance d, and the rate at which work as been done by force (the power) for that period is P = Fd/t' = mad/t'. But since the force is constant, the equation of position of the object is x(t) = 0.5at², for which we know a solution to be d = 0.5at'² <==> [itex]t' = \sqrt{2d/a}[/itex]. Hence we can rewrite the power for that particular trajectory of the object as

[tex]P = \frac{mad}{\sqrt{2d/a}} = \frac{ma\sqrt{ad}}{\sqrt{2}} = \sqrt{\frac{d}{2}}ma^{3/2}[/tex]
 
Point #1 : the title prase "Power proportional to acceleration" does not apply
to P~a/t nor to P~a^3/2 . (Does Hola know what proportional means?)
Point #2 : "average Power over a given distance" is not the same thing as P.
Unmodified, unqualified Power seems to misleadingly imply constant P,
or that it is a relationship that could be used in most any situation.
But knowing that P ~ F.v ~ a.v makes it obvious that here (a=const) P ~ t .
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K