Firing a spherical bullet into a watertank

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheMan112
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bullet Spherical
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the distance a spherical bullet travels when fired horizontally into a watertank, considering the retarding force it experiences. The force is modeled as F = -k * v, leading to non-constant acceleration described by Newton's second law. The user contemplates integrating the acceleration to find the position function, x(t), but struggles with the recursive nature of the differential equation m * ddot{x} - k * dot{x} = 0. The thread also touches on the appropriateness of posting in the correct forum section, with the user acknowledging their mistake. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities of solving the motion of the bullet under variable forces.
TheMan112
Messages
42
Reaction score
1
I've got a problem, involving non-constant acceleration:

If we fire a spherical bullet horizontally into a watertank, how far will the bullet traverse?

I've figured as much that a spherical bullet provides a retarding force:

F = -k \cdot v where k is a constant.

This should provide the following non-constant acceleration due to Newtons 2nd law.

a = \frac{F}{m} = - {\frac{k v}{m}}

I'm thinking I should integrate two times over a(t) to get an expression for x(t), but since "a" is proportional to v(t) and not directly to t, I don't know how to do it without getting a recursive expression.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The differential equation to solve is:

m \ddot{x} - k \dot{x} = 0

And solutions are fairly straightforward to find.
 
you already posted this in HW-section.
 
Yes, my apologies. I started this thread before I noticed one should ask such questions i the HW-section. I'm going to post my reply to Andy there, you may remove this thread.
 
TheMan112 said:
Yes, my apologies. I started this thread before I noticed one should ask such questions i the HW-section. I'm going to post my reply to Andy there, you may remove this thread.

It's ok, threads are often moved to the correct place after awhile. Just wanted to draw your attention to this :-)
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top