Find time from distance-speed graph

  • Thread starter Thread starter Metaphysics
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Graph Time
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the time for the playhead to travel sections 2 and 3 of a distance-speed graph, the discussion suggests using average speed due to linear changes in speed. The approach involves expressing speed as a linear function of distance and then solving a differential equation derived from the relationship between acceleration and velocity. By determining the slope from the graph, one can set up the equation to find velocity as a function of time. The initial conditions at the start of each section are crucial for solving the equation. This method allows for calculating the time taken for each section effectively.
Metaphysics
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Playrate envelope.png

In audio application i can automate playrate envelope (playhead speed)
1 = original speed, 2 = 2 x original speed, 3 = 3 x original speed etc..

Now i need to calculate time it takes for playhead to travel each section

its easy to calculate time for section 1, where speed is constant
time = section 1 len/speed = 1/1 = 1 sec

but i don't know how to find time for section 2, section 3

can you help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Metaphysics said:
but i don't know how to find time for section 2, section 3
I don't really know what you're calculating. Nonetheless, it looks like the speed changes linearly in those sections, so you should be able to use the average speed.
 
I think my previous response was a bit glib, seeing as the horizontal axis is distance and not time. But for each section, you can write the speed as a linear function of distance, then rearrange and integrate.
 
I would follow a different approach from @Doc Al. Start with the standard transformation for the acceleration.
$$a=\frac{dv}{dt}=\frac{dv}{dx}\frac{dx}{dt}=v\frac{dv}{dx}$$In sections 2 and 3 ##\dfrac{dv}{dx}=\text{const.}=\alpha##. You can easily get the slope ##\alpha## in each section from the graph. Then $$\frac{dv}{dt}=\alpha ~v.$$Can you solve this simple differential equation to find ##v(t)##? If so, then do it, but don't forget the initial condition at the beginning of each section. Then invert the equation to find ##t## as a function of ##v## and you're done. If you cannot solve the differential equation, we are here to help.
 
Good stuff @kuruman.

I'll outline the approach I mentioned above (which was just the first that occurred to me). Start by expressing the velocity as a function of distance, which should be trivial since it's a straight line. For example, using the standard form for a straight line:
$$ v(x) = mx + b$$
That gives you the following simple differential equation, which you can solve:
$$v = \frac{dx}{dt} = mx + b$$

Either way, it's all good. (For fun, solve it both ways and compare.)
 
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