Solving for a variable, transposing equation

  • Thread starter Pharrahnox
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Variable
In summary: I was also hoping that the wolfram reference might shed some light on this.Using the same unit approach as before, this becomes a bit of a mess. I'll be more explicit about the units this time, as this does seem to be a bit of a muddle:To make life easier, we'll assume that the power, P, is constant. This will enable us to ignore the 2*m*P part of the equation.Units on the left hand side of the equation:m*k*s^-2*m^-1 + m*k*s^-2*m^-1 = m*k*s^-2*m^-1Units on the right hand side of the equation:m*k*m^2*s^-2*m^-
  • #1
Pharrahnox
106
0
I have an equation, where acceleration is affected by a driving power and air resistance. The acceleration is given by:

a = (2P / m + u^2)^0.5 - (k*p*A*u^2 / 2m) - u

I'm trying to make "u" the subject, which is previous velocity, to find at what velocity does acceleration become 0, the maximum speed. However, this has proven to be very difficult for me, and the closest I have gotten is:

8P / k*m*p = k*p*u^4 + 4*u^3

However, this does not have "u" by itself. I have gotten "u" by itself, but it requires cube rooting or even 4th rooting (I don't know the term) the other side of the equation, and still has "u" in that...

I'm hoping there's a nice easy way of fixing this, but I can't seem to find it. I have tried online calculators, and my ClassPad, but they give very large and complex answers.

Thanks for any help.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
  • #3
I went to this website (http://www.1728.org/quartic2.htm) to figure out the quartic equation, I haven't done them before, and I came up with a cubic equation of y^3-3y^2-3y-1=0, which then gave:

x1,2 and 3 = 1-1/kp
x4 = -3-1/kp

But I don't think this is correct somehow, or is not the end result, because it gives values of about -2000 for specific values of k and p, when it should be about 32.69.

What should I do with the quartic equation? I put it in the form: k*p*u^4 + 4*u^3 - 8*P / k*m*p

I tried to graph the equation and this gives me the correct result at x = 0 (y being the maximum speed): x = (8*P / k^2*p^2*m - 4*y^3 / k*p)^0.25

But it is not as straightforward as I had hoped. Will the quartic equation solver give me the answer I'm looking for?


EDIT: I have managed to figure out the formula for it: u = cuberoot(2*P / k*m*p), but it took a fair few steps, and one of them still doesn't properly make sense to me.
Even though I have the answer, I would still like to have a better understanding of how to work through it, so that I can replicate it for other equations.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
If you want the solutions of a quartic to be in algebraic form, you will find it disappointingly complicated and unwieldy.

A quartic will have one, two, or four real solutions. If you are able to express the polynomial with numerical coefficients so that the only algebraic term is the unknown, x, then you can use a plotting facility to reveal the graph, as well as provide that equation's numeric solutions.

e.g., an example using wolframalpha http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y^4-2y^3-3y^2-3y-1=0&x=0&y=0
 
  • #5
something worries me slightly about your original equation ... I'm not sure it looks sensible in terms of dimensions/units. You have one term on the left (acceleration), and three terms on the right. The third term on the right is velocity I think, which obviously is dimensionally different to acceleration. Perhaps I'm being a bit dim, but I can't see how that be correct. If you could explain what the various terms are that might be helpful in understanding the overall problem
 
  • #6
NascentOxygen said:
If you want the solutions of a quartic to be in algebraic form, you will find it disappointingly complicated and unwieldy.

A quartic will have one, two, or four real solutions. If you are able to express the polynomial with numerical coefficients so that the only algebraic term is the unknown, x, then you can use a plotting facility to reveal the graph, as well as provide that equation's numeric solutions.

This should be zero, two or four, surely?
 
  • #7
a = (2P / m + u^2)^0.5 - (k*p*A*u^2 / 2m) - u

^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3

1 - The velocity due to power being supplied, driving it forward, using power to directly change kinetic energy.
3 - Is the velocity before that power was supplied, so velocity - previous velocity is the change in velocity.
2 - Is the negative acceleration due to air resistance. In my equation, I replace the reference area "A" with mass "m", as it is proportional for my purposes anyway.

I guess, after looking at this, it is more finding the change in velocity rather than acceleration, because time isn't important. So I am trying to find the point at which the force from the driving power and the force from friction cancel out, to find the maximum speed.

The formula I put in my second post isn't actually correct, and it is actually:

u = cuberoot( 2*P / k*m*p - k*p*u^4 / 4)

But the problem is that there is "u" on both sides of the equation, so it hardly solves anything.

EDIT: The wolfram site gave me the correct answer, so the equation to graph it is:

k*p*u^4 + 4*u^3 - (8*P / k*m*p) = 0

How can this be converted to make "u" the subject? If there is an easy way...
 
Last edited:
  • #8
sjb-2812 said:
This should be zero, two or four, surely?
That's a good point, but I was focussed on emphasising in the vernacular of the poster that it may be that there is only one real number that satisfies the equality condition.

It can be left for another time to explain how one can be counted as two, etc.
 

What is "solving for a variable"?

Solving for a variable means finding the value of a specific variable in an equation by manipulating the equation using algebraic techniques.

What does "transposing an equation" mean?

Transposing an equation involves rearranging the terms of an equation so that the variable being solved for is isolated on one side of the equation and all other terms are on the other side.

How do I solve for a variable?

To solve for a variable, you can use algebraic techniques such as combining like terms, using the distributive property, and isolating the variable on one side of the equation. Remember to perform the same operation on both sides of the equation to maintain equality.

What is the purpose of solving for a variable?

Solving for a variable allows us to find the specific value of a variable that makes an equation true. This is useful in many fields of science, such as physics and chemistry, where equations are used to model and predict real-world phenomena.

What are some common mistakes to avoid when solving for a variable?

Some common mistakes to avoid when solving for a variable include forgetting to perform the same operation on both sides of the equation, making errors in simplifying expressions, and forgetting to apply the correct order of operations. It is important to double-check your work and always show your steps to avoid mistakes.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
230
  • Engineering and Comp Sci Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Mechanics
Replies
30
Views
801
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
211
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
227
  • Calculus
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • General Math
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
20
Views
757
Back
Top