Deriving Speed In Terms of Potential Difference

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving speed in terms of potential difference, using various equations related to kinetic and potential energy. The key formula presented is that speed equals the square root of double the product of charge and potential difference divided by mass. The derivation incorporates principles of conservation of energy, specifically ΔKE = qΔV. The contributor emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationship between energy forms to validate their findings. Overall, the discussion highlights the mathematical connections between energy, charge, and speed.
Oriako
Messages
107
Reaction score
1
I'm attempting to derive speed in terms of potential difference (voltage), can anyone let me know if there are any errors?

[PLAIN]http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21E_k%3D%5Cfrac%7B1%7D%7B2%7D%5Ctext%7Bmv%7D%5E2.gif

[PLAIN]http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21v%3D%5Csqrt%7B%5Cfrac%7B2E_p%7D%7Bm%7D%7D.gif, since [PLAIN]http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21E_k%3DE_p.gif

[PLAIN]http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21v%3D%5Csqrt%7B%5Cfrac%7B2%28%5Ctext%7Bma%24%5CDelta%20%24d%7D%29%7D%7Bm%7D%7D.gif, since [PLAIN]http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21E_p%3D%5Ctext%7Bmg%24%5CDelta%20%24h%7D%20.gif may be generalized to [PLAIN]http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21E_p%3D%5Ctext%7Bma%24%5CDelta%20%24d%7D.gif for electric energy.

[PLAIN]http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21v%3D%5Csqrt%7B%5Cfrac%7B2%5Cleft%28F_%7B%5Ctext%7Bnet%7D%7D%5Ctext%7B%24%5CDelta%20%24d%7D%5Cright%29%7D%7Bm%7D%7D.gif, since [PLAIN]http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21F_%7B%5Ctext%7Bnet%7D%7D%3D%5Ctext%7Bma%7D.gif

[PLAIN]http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21v%3D%5Csqrt%7B%5Cfrac%7B2W%7D%7Bm%7D%7D.gif, since [PLAIN]http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21W%3DF_%7B%5Ctext%7Bnet%7D%7D%5Ctext%7B%24%5CDelta%20%24d%7D.gif

[PLAIN]http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21v%3D%5Csqrt%7B%5Cfrac%7B2%5Ctext%7B%24%5CDelta%20%24E%7D%7D%7Bm%7D%7D.gif, since [PLAIN]http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21%5Ctext%7B%24%5CDelta%20%24E%7D%20%3D%20W.gif

[PLAIN]http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21v%3D%5Csqrt%7B%5Cfrac%7B2%28%5Ctext%7B%24%5CDelta%20%24Vq%7D%29%7D%7Bm%7D%7D.gif, since [PLAIN]http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21%5Ctext%7B%24%5CDelta%20%24Vq%7D%3D%5Ctext%7B%24%5CDelta%20%24E%7D.gif

Therefore, speed is equal to the square root of double the product of charge and potential difference divided by mass.

Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Seems like that took a lot of work! If you accept conservation of energy, thus ΔKE = qΔV (ignoring signs), then you can get to the punchline in one step.
 
Sorry, forgot to mention it. But I did this to prove to myself that ΔE = E_k
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top