For Doc, rates of change of acceleration

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the distinction between change in acceleration and the rate of change of acceleration, known as jerk. Change in acceleration can be expressed in the same units as acceleration, such as "g," while the rate of change of acceleration has units of m/s³. Participants discuss the conversion of acceleration measured in "g" to m/s/s/s for specific calculations, emphasizing the need to multiply by appropriate factors, such as 9.8, to achieve the correct units. The conversation also touches on the need for proper formatting in posts, specifically regarding the use of symbols. Understanding these unit conversions is crucial for accurately measuring and expressing rates of change in acceleration.
Micky
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Sometime ago you very kindly advised me regarding units for rates of change of acceleration.

I still don't fully understand how "a" and "Δa" can have the same units, "g". If acceleration is measured in terms of "g", shouldn't the rate of change of acceleration be measured in terms of g/s?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are correct.

rate of change of acceleration, also called jerk, has units

\frac m {s^3}
 
Originally posted by Micky
Sometime ago you very kindly advised me regarding units for rates of change of acceleration.
As Integral states, the rate of change of acceleration is called "jerk".
I still don't fully understand how "a" and "Δa" can have the same units, "g". If acceleration is measured in terms of "g", shouldn't the rate of change of acceleration be measured in terms of g/s?
You are confusing change with rate of change. The units of a change in any quantity will be the same units as the quantity.

Example: Your weight goes from 165 lbs to 170 lbs. The change is 5 lbs, same units as your weight.

If the change took place over 1 month, the (average) rate of change of your weight would be: 5 lbs/month. Different quantity, different units.

Similary, the CHANGE of acceleration will have units of m/s2 (you can measure in terms of "g" if you want), but the RATE of change of acceleration would be in units of m/s3 (you can use g/sec, if you dare).

Bottom line: Change is Δa; rate of change is Δa/Δt.
 
Thanks Integral, can jerk also be expressed as g/s?
 
I've had another look at the original thread here

I think I see now how Doc's answer is correct for my method of measuring rates of change of acceleration. I'm comparing two consecutive measurements of acceleration (units = "g"), therefore the answer = change in acceleration over the time period and must be in "g" .. I think. This is fine for the current project which is comparing rates of change of accel.

However, at some stage I will need to express the rate of change of acceleration in units of m/s/s/s. So if the measurement period is, say, 0.01s then I need to multiply the change in acceleration over this period by 100.

I suspect that the calculation should be {measured accel value in units of g}*9.8*100 which should then give me the rate of change of acceleration measured in m/s/s/s ??

Is there a thread with info about inserting symbols into posts?
 
Originally posted by Micky
I've had another look at the original thread here

I think I see now how Doc's answer is correct for my method of measuring rates of change of acceleration. I'm comparing two consecutive measurements of acceleration (units = "g"), therefore the answer = change in acceleration over the time period and must be in "g" .. I think. This is fine for the current project which is comparing rates of change of accel.

However, at some stage I will need to express the rate of change of acceleration in units of m/s/s/s. So if the measurement period is, say, 0.01s then I need to multiply the change in acceleration over this period by 100.

I suspect that the calculation should be {measured accel value in units of g}*9.8*100 which should then give me the rate of change of acceleration measured in m/s/s/s ??

Is there a thread with info about inserting symbols into posts?
the LaTeX thread.
 
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...
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