Deriving an equation for Jetpack motion, Kinetic Energy

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around deriving equations of motion and kinetic energy for a jetpack system, focusing on stabilizing a man wearing a jetpack at a specific height using control theory methods. Participants explore theoretical aspects, mathematical modeling, and practical control strategies.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their approach using the Lagrangian to derive the equations of motion, resulting in -9.8 - u''[t] == f[t], where u''[t] is the acceleration of the jetpack man.
  • Another participant questions the sign of the thrust force f[t], suggesting it should be specified as positive thrust, leading to the equation u'' = f + g, where g = -9.8.
  • A different participant proposes an equation of motion based on integrating thrust over time, resulting in u(t) = ∫(∫f(t)dt)dt - (1/2)gt², and discusses the kinetic energy as (1/2)m(u'(t))².
  • One participant shares a practical method using PID control to stabilize the jetpack man, describing a nested control loop approach to determine requested velocity and acceleration based on position error.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about how to apply their findings to a state space method, suggesting a numerical integration technique as a solution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct formulation of the equations of motion and the role of thrust. There is no consensus on the best approach to stabilize the jetpack man, with multiple competing methods and theories presented.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about thrust being instantaneous and the jetpack having infinite fuel, which may not reflect practical scenarios. The discussion also highlights unresolved mathematical steps and varying interpretations of the equations involved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in control theory, dynamics of motion, and applications of mathematical modeling in engineering contexts.

Szichedelic
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone, I am currently working on a program which involves stabilizing a man wearing a jetpack at some arbitrary point along the vertical axis. This program is part of an experiment my faculty mentor gave me.

Basically, what I am trying to do is have the Jetpack man stabilize at a point along the vertical axis by using control theory methods. I've already been able to animate my solution, yet for some reason the Jetpack man will not stabilize. I have a feeling this has to do with my equations of motion being wrong.

I began with finding the Lagrangian for the energy of the system. What resulted is -9.8-u''[t] == f[t], where u''[t] is the acceleration of the Jetpack man. I then use a State Space model and subsequently LQR regulator gains to attempt to stabilize the Jetpack man at some point, say u[t] = 50. What happens is that he just falls indefinitely (beyond u[t]==0).

I think that my kinetic energy for the jet pack is wrong. Can anyone help me derive this? I am also assuming that the jetpack has infinite amounts of fuel (not practical, I know, but that is not the point).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So rather than a jetpack, it's more like a magic device that can produce any amount of thrust you want without changing mass?

If I assume the initial height is u(0) = 0, and the initial speed is u'(0) = 0, and the initial thrust is f(0) = 0, then I get an equation of motion:

u(t) = ∫(∫f(t)dt)dt - (1/2)gt2

I'm not really sure what do do with that, I'm just thinking out loud.

Wouldn't the kinetic energy just be (1/2)m(u'(t))2 where m is whatever mass you assume?
 
Yeah, that is exactly what I got, cepheid. It is kind of weird because it is not a very practical example at all. This is more to demonstrate a few control theory concepts I have learned from studying on my own. however, using that kinetic energy, I cannot get my jetpack man to stabilize at a point. It just falls.
 
Szichedelic said:
-9.8-u''[t] == f[t], where u''[t] is the acceleration of the Jetpack man.

Wouldn't you specify f[t] as positive thrust? If so, the sign is wrong, no? u'' = f+g where g = -9.8. You have -f+g.
 
Szichedelic,

I got your rocket man to stabilize using a really dumb method. :-p I remember nothing of my control theory course except basic PID control, which I use in a practical context in some of my work. I decide to literally just have proportional gain terms that determined the requested velocity and requested acceleration. I assumed that the jetpack could provide the requested acceleration instantaneously. So my nested control loops were as follows:

Suppose yreq is the requested position (height above the origin in metres). Then the requested velocity is proportional to the position error, with gain term Py:[tex]v_\textrm{req} = P_y(y_\textrm{req} - y)[/tex]Similarly, I determined what acceleration I wanted for the jetpack man using the criterion[tex]a_\textrm{req} = a = P_v(v_\textrm{req} - v)[/tex]Oh, and by the way, it's just true that f(t) = a(t) + g where f(t) is the jetpack thrust (edit: per unit mass). Anyway if you plug the expression for vreq from the first equation into the second, you can get a second-order linear differential equation for y(t). Rather than bothering to solve the equation analytically, I just solved it numerically using the stupidest numerical integration technique possible. In each time step I just said that the current position is incremented by an amount equal to the velocity from the previous time step multiplied by the time step interval (dt). Similarly the velocity is incremented by the previous acceleration multiplied by dt. Then the acceleration and the velocity request are updated using the equations above. For yreq = 10 m, and Py = Pv = 1, and for y(0) = v(0) = 0, I got the following results:

uFZ3Cl.png

5eusll.png

Hswwtl.png

uziqAl.png


EDIT: is there some way you can translate this into your fancy state space method, perhaps by starting with the second-order ODE?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
12K