B Constant jerk motion: acceleration vs. position

  • Thread starter Thread starter FranzS
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving an equation for acceleration with respect to position when motion involves constant jerk. The user proposes setting up a differential equation to relate acceleration and position, acknowledging the need to find time as a function of position, which involves solving a cubic equation. A response suggests using a known formula to solve the cubic and substituting the result back into the initial equations to find acceleration. The user realizes the oversight in not directly substituting into the first equation and appreciates the clarification. This exchange highlights the complexity of motion equations involving jerk and the importance of recognizing simpler solutions.
FranzS
Messages
86
Reaction score
26
TL;DR
How to find an equation for acceleration vs. position in a constant jerk motion?
Hi PF,

a motion with constant jerk ##j##, i.e. with a constant rate of change of the acceleration with respect to time, should be described by the following equations (hope the variable names are self-explanatory):

$$
\begin{cases}
a = a_0 + j \ t \\
v = v_0 + a_0 \ t + \frac{1}{2} \ j \ t^2 \\
s = s_0 + v_0 \ t + \frac{1}{2} \ a_0 \ t^2 + \frac{1}{6} \ j \ t^3
\end{cases}
$$

I'm interested in deriving an explicit equation for acceleration ##a## with respect to position ##s## as the only independent variable. Jerk ##j## and all initial conditions are to be considered known values.
My guess is that I should set up a differential equation of the type...
$$
\frac{da(s)}{ds}=\frac{da(t)}{dt} \cdot \frac{dt(s)}{ds}
$$
... where ##da(t)/dt=j## by definition, and then integrate both sides.
But that would mean finding ##t(s)## first, and that's solving a cubic equation.

Is my approach correct? Is there any simpler way?
Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There's a known formula to solve a cubic. Look it up, write ##t(s)##, and plug that into your first equation. You will get either one or three real solutions. You can safely ignore complex solutions, but if you have multiple real solutions you may have to come up with a way to pick the correct one.
 
Ibix said:
There's a known formula to solve a cubic. Look it up, write ##t(s)##, and plug that into your first equation. You will get either one or three real solutions. You can safely ignore complex solutions, but if you have multiple real solutions you may have to come up with a way to pick the correct one.
How could I not see the direct substitution into the first equation... It seems like I really wanted to re-derive that one as well... My bad. Thanks for pointing it out.
 
Thread 'The rocket equation, one more time'
I already posted a similar thread a while ago, but this time I want to focus exclusively on one single point that is still not clear to me. I just came across this problem again in Modern Classical Mechanics by Helliwell and Sahakian. Their setup is exactly identical to the one that Taylor uses in Classical Mechanics: a rocket has mass m and velocity v at time t. At time ##t+\Delta t## it has (according to the textbooks) velocity ##v + \Delta v## and mass ##m+\Delta m##. Why not ##m -...

Similar threads

Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
966
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K