Analyzing Velocity as a Function of Depth Underwater

AI Thread Summary
To analyze the velocity of a diver as a function of depth underwater, the equation of motion is given by F = -mg + cv^2, where c represents a frictional constant. The user successfully integrates to find velocity as a function of time and subsequently depth as a function of time. However, they struggle to derive a clear function for velocity in terms of depth. The discussion highlights the challenge of relating these variables through integration techniques. Ultimately, the user seeks assistance in simplifying the relationship between velocity and depth.
Ed Quanta
Messages
296
Reaction score
0
If some dude jumps into the ocean from a 10m diving board so that when he makes contact with the water F=-mg + cv^2 where c is some frictional constant, how do I solve for the velocity of the guy as a function of the depth under water? I am able to integrate so that I obtain velocity as a function of time and then integrate again so that I have the depth under water as a function of time, but I can't seem to get a nice function for velocity in terms of depth. I'm really bad with this stuff so I just thought Id throw the question out there.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
u can write

\frac{dv}{dt}=\frac{dx}{dt} * \frac{dv}{dx} = v \frac{dv}{dx}
 
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...
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