Acceleration proportional to velocity

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on a physics problem involving a particle accelerated from rest with acceleration proportional to its velocity. The key equations discussed include a = dv/dx and a = kv, where k is a constant. Participants clarify the integration process and the implications of dividing by velocity, highlighting that division by zero is a concern. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly applying calculus concepts to derive the relationship between distance, velocity, and acceleration. Overall, the thread explores the mathematical foundations necessary to solve the problem accurately.
s0laris
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A particle is accelerated from rest with acc. proportional to velocity. After traveling 10 meters the speed is 35 m/s, find the speed after the particle traveled 20 meters. (Changed the numbers a bit from the original so the answer ppbly will not be clean.)

Homework Equations



a=v dv/dx possibly

The Attempt at a Solution


Sat on this one for a long, long time

Tanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"Tanks"?

No, a is not "v dv/dx". Rather a= dv/dx which, here, is proportional to v:
a= dv/dx= kv for some number k.

From that dv/v= kdx. Now integrate both sides.
 
a = dv/dt, I think you mean?
 
Yea, watch out for those advancing tanks; hah, no I meant to say thanks.
Anyway, I do believe that a= v dv/dx ; dv/dt = (dv/dx)(dx/dt) = v (dv/dx). Does this seem reasonable:
a=kv=v dv/dx
k=dv/dx
k dx = dv
intg.
v=kx
? or is dividing by v not allowed => loss of roots or something?
 
I do believe you're right, a = v dv/dx. (In one dimension of course) And I don't see anything wrong with your work.

Can you think of a reason why dividing by v would not be allowed? (hint: what number(s) are you not allowed to divide by?)
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top