Solving linear acceleration for time.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the time variable in the context of linear acceleration and displacement. The original equation used is d = i*t + 0.5*a*t^2, from which the time equation t = (sqrt(i^2 + 2ad) - i) / a is derived. The key to this derivation involves completing the square, a standard technique in solving quadratic equations. By manipulating the terms and applying the quadratic formula, one can arrive at the desired expression for time. Understanding these algebraic manipulations is essential for accurate collision detection in programming.
GemmaT
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I'm currently developing a program which solves the displacement of an object using the standard acceleration equation [d=i*t + 0.5*a*t^2], where i=initial velocity, t=time and a=acceleration.

As the need has arisen to determine the time at which an object reaches a particular displacement (collision detection), I am currently using the equation [t = (sqrt(i^2 + 2ad) - i) / a] in order to solve for t.

The problem is, I cannot for the life of me see how the second equation is derived from the first using standard algebraic manipulations. Whilst my program operates correctly using the aforementioned equations, it would be nice if someone could explain the manipulations involved in order to procure this derivation.

Gemma.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
GemmaT said:
I'm currently developing a program which solves the displacement of an object using the standard acceleration equation [d=i*t + 0.5*a*t^2], where i=initial velocity, t=time and a=acceleration.

As the need has arisen to determine the time at which an object reaches a particular displacement (collision detection), I am currently using the equation [t = (sqrt(i^2 + 2ad) - i) / a] in order to solve for t.

The problem is, I cannot for the life of me see how the second equation is derived from the first using standard algebraic manipulations. Whilst my program operates correctly using the aforementioned equations, it would be nice if someone could explain the manipulations involved in order to procure this derivation.

Gemma.

Hey GemmaT and welcome to the forums.

For quadratic equations, the main step is to complete the square. Let's look at a standard quadratic equation:

ax^2 + bx + c = 0. Want to solve for x.

Now what we do is complete the square for the ax^2 + bx terms. Move c to the other side.

ax^2 + bx = -c.
x^2 + (b/a)x = -c/a (Divide both sides by a)

This is where we complete the square. We know that (x + d)^2 = x^2 + 2dx + d^2 using standard expansion. What we want to do is match up the 2d with (b/a) which means 2d = b/a which means d = b/2a. Doing this we get:

x^2 + (b/a)x = -c/a goes to
x^2 + (b/a)x + (b/2a)^2 = -c/a + (b/2a)^2 (Add (b/2a)^2 to both sides)
(x + (b/2a))^2 = (b/2a)^2 - (c/a) (Using result above)

(x + (b/2a)) = +-SQRT( (b/2a)^2 - (c/a)) (Taking square roots and remembering positive and negative solutions)

x = -b/2a +- SQRT((b/2a)^2 - (c/a)). Now factor out the 2a term and put it on the denominator and we get

x = (-b +- SQRT(b^2 - 4ac))/2a which is the quadratic formula.

Using the appropriate a,b,c for your problem should give you the right result.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top