Find force on a particle at time t

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the force on a particle at a specific time using various equations related to work, power, and momentum. Participants explore different formulations, questioning assumptions about constant acceleration and the relationship between work and momentum. The conversation highlights the importance of starting from the correct equations, such as W = Pt, and how to express work in terms of momentum and mass. Ultimately, the calculations lead to different expressions for force, prompting further clarification and validation of the methods used. The thread emphasizes the complexity of these physics concepts and the collaborative effort to arrive at accurate solutions.
Istiak
Messages
158
Reaction score
12
Homework Statement
A particle of mass ##m## is driven by a machine that delivers a constant power of k watt. If the particle starts from rest, the force on the particle at time t is...................
Relevant Equations
##\vec F=m\frac{d^2 \vec s}{dt^2}##
##P=\frac{W}{t}##
##W=\vec F\cdot \vec s##
Screenshot (110).png


My attempt :

##\frac{\vec Ft^2}{2}=m\vec s##
##s=\frac{Ft^2}{2m}##
##P=\frac{W}{t}##
##k=\frac{\vec F\cdot \vec s}{t}##
##k=\frac{F^2t^2}{2mt}##
##k=\frac{F^2t}{2m}##
##F=\sqrt{\frac{2mk}{t}}##

But there was an option which was ##2\sqrt{\frac{mk}{t}}##. And my assumption was that it was correct. They approximately equal but not completely. Do you get the same answer? Or do you get ##2## outside the square root?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you assumed acceleration is constantfor your first equation?
 
PeroK said:
Have you assumed acceleration is constant for your first equation?
Yes
 
But it isn't !
You want to start from ##W = P t\ ##
And use ##F = {dp\over dt} ##
 
Istiakshovon said:
Yes
The power is constant; not the force. Hence the acceleration is time dependent.
 
BvU said:
But it isn't !
You want to start from ##W = P t\ ##
And use ##F = {dp\over dt} ##
##W=Pt##
##Fs=Pt##
##\frac{kt}{s}=\frac{dp}{dt}##
🤔
 
:smile: Excellent. What is ##W## in terms of ##p ## and ##m## ?
Remember, you don't want ##s##. You want ##{dp\over dt}##
 
BvU said:
:smile: Excellent. What is ##W## in terms of ##p ## and ##m## ?
Remember, you don't want ##s##. You want ##{dp\over dt}##
If I take ##p## then I don't get ##m## cause I must use ##p=mv## to find out ##W## in terms of ##m##. I can write that ##W=\frac{dp}{dt}vdt##, but I don't want to use velocity also.
 
You sure don't. But ##W = kt## and you can write ##W## in terms of ##p## and ##m##, I should hope :wink:

[edit] ##W=\frac{dp}{dt}vdt## says ## W={\rm d}p\,v \ ##, that can't be right !

##\ ##
 
  • #10
BvU said:
You sure don't. But ##W = kt## and you can write ##W## in terms of ##p## and ##m##, I should hope :wink:

[edit] ##W=\frac{dp}{dt}vdt## says ## W={\rm d}p}\,v ## can't be right !

##\ ##
Oops I remember, ##W=\frac{p^2}{2m}##..
 
  • #11
Good. So now you want ##{\rm d}p\over dt## out of ##W = kt## and bingo !

##\ ##
 
  • Informative
Likes Istiak
  • #12
##W=kt##
##\frac{p^2}{2m}=kt##
##p^2=2mkt##
##\frac{d(p^2)}{dt}=2mk##
##2p\dot p=2mk##
##F=\frac{mk}{p}##
blah :|

Instead of doing that I found ##p=\sqrt{2mkt}##
##F=\frac{1}{2}(2mkt)^{-\frac{1}{2}}2mk##
##=\sqrt{\frac{mk}{2t}}##

Done! Thanks. but sad :)
 
  • #13
Istiakshovon said:
Done! Thanks. but sad :)
Nonsense. Well done! Do you think others just do this kind of thing 'on the fly'? Not me and not many others either.

Sorry @PeroK for somewhat intruding.

##\ ##
 
  • #14
You could also have used ##Fv = P = k## and ##\frac 1 2 m v^2 = Pt = kt##.

In general we have:
$$E = \frac 1 2 m \vec v \cdot \vec v$$$$\Rightarrow \ P \equiv \frac{dE}{dt} = m \vec a \cdot \vec v = \vec F \cdot \vec v$$
 
  • Informative
Likes Istiak
Back
Top