A question about linear drag force

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the relationship between velocity (v) and position (r) in the context of linear drag force in classical mechanics. It emphasizes that while velocity is defined as the derivative of position, it does not depend on position in a functional sense for the equations of motion being considered. The drag force is expressed as f = -bv, leading to a first-order differential equation that simplifies the analysis. The key takeaway is that velocity is treated as a separate variable that influences motion but does not directly depend on position in this context. Understanding this distinction is crucial for solving problems involving drag forces in projectile motion.
shanname
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
My classical mechanics textbook says that, for a projectile, the linear drag force is given by f = -bv and the second law is written as m\ddot{r} = mg - bv (a second order differential equation) which can be rewritten as m\dot{v} = mg - bv (a first order differential equation) because the forces depend only on v and not on r. But I can't figure out why this is the case. Doesn't v depend on r?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. Velocity doesn't depend on location as such, only to the extent that location may effect some of the parameters.
 
##\mathbf v ## doesn't "depend" on ##\mathbf r## in the sense that it is some (unknown) function of ##\mathbf r## and probably some other variables as well.

The point is that ##\mathbf v## is just another name for ##\mathbf{\dot r}##, (that's what "velocity" means!) and differentiating, ##\mathbf{\dot v}## is identically equal to ##\mathbf{\ddot r}##.
 
Thank you, AlephZero. I believe I understand. I mean, I know that v is just another name for \dot{r} and the like, I just thought it could be rewritten in terms of v for that reason. No one ever explained that this is true specfically because v did not "depend" on r... is it ever the case that v does depend on r?
 
sorry, didn't realize I wasn't bolding \dot{r}.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top