Calculating Minimum of PT = 16.8e0.0697t + 204e-0.356t

  • Thread starter Thread starter Procrastinate
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Minimum
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the minimum of the function PT = 16.8e0.0697t + 204e-0.356t. Participants are analyzing their calculations and comparing results from different methods and tools.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to find stationary points by setting the derivative PT' to zero. There are discussions about the values of t obtained from different calculations, with some questioning the methods used, such as the application of logarithms or exponents.

Discussion Status

Multiple values for t have been proposed by different participants, indicating a lack of consensus on the correct minimum. Some participants have offered guidance on potential errors in calculations, suggesting a need to re-evaluate steps taken.

Contextual Notes

Participants have noted specific errors in calculations, such as miswriting numerical values, which may have impacted their results. There is also mention of reliance on graphical calculators and online tools for verification.

Procrastinate
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Calculate the minimum of PT = 16.8e0.0697t + 204e-0.356t

PT' = 0.0697 x 16.8e0.0697t + -.356 x 204e-0.356t

Stationary points occur when PT'=0. Therefore:

0=0.0697 x 16.8e0.0697t + -.356 x 204e-0.356t

My final answer was that t = 4.29. However, the Graphics Calculator begs to differ and says that it is 5.695.

Attached is my working; where have I gone wrong?
 

Attachments

  • scan0013.jpg
    scan0013.jpg
    17.4 KB · Views: 423
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Procrastinate said:
Was that using the natural logarithm or an exponent?

Up to this point you were doing well, then you decided to start dividing and made an error. Try by multiplying it out first then dividing:

0.356*204*exp(-0.356*t) = 0.0697*16.8*exp(0.0697*t)

It should be

72.624*exp(-0.356*t) = 1.17096*exp(0.0697*t)
62.020*exp(-0.356*t)=exp(0.0697*t)

62.020=exp(0.0697*t)/exp(-0.356*t)

ln(62.020)=ln(exp(0.4257*t))

4.1275 = 0.4257*t

t=9.6957
 
Last edited:
In your work, you seem to have changed 0.30 ... into 0.030... a little below the middle of the page.
 
I did that and now I get 9.695...
 
hgfalling said:
In your work, you seem to have changed 0.30 ... into 0.030... a little below the middle of the page.

I rectified that afterwards. Perhaps what I graphed into my Graphics Calculator is wrong.
 
It is. Silly me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K