Distance covered under variable acceleration

AI Thread Summary
Distance covered under variable acceleration can be calculated when acceleration depends on velocity, as seen in electric vehicles. The equation for acceleration is expressed as a = K*velocity + C, leading to the differential equation mv(dv/dx) = Kv + C. To solve this, one can use separation of variables, assuming K and C are constants. By integrating, the velocity can be determined as v = C/K*(exp(K*t) - 1), and subsequently, the distance can be found with x = C/K*(exp(K*t)/K - t). This method provides a framework for analyzing motion under variable acceleration conditions.
lsmiley
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Is it possible to find the distance covered in a certain time when acceleration depends on velocity, such as an electric-powered vehicle might do??
Acceleration := K*velocity + Const
 
Physics news on Phys.org
a=Kv+C

a=mv(dv/dx)

mv(dv/dx)=Kv+C

you would need to solve that equation, m,K and C are constants most likely by separation of variables.
 
Assuming K and C are constants, you can integrate to find v, then integrate to find x.
In this case, assuming starting from stand still, v=C/K*(exp(K*t)-1)
x = C/K*(exp(K*t)/K-t)
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top