Integrating non-constant acceleration to give time

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenge of integrating non-constant acceleration for an object experiencing both accelerating and friction forces that depend on velocity. The user expects the velocity to approach a limit over time, akin to terminal velocity, but struggles with the integration process. Their integration attempts yield a third-degree polynomial that does not incorporate time and leads to negative speed for large values, indicating a fundamental issue. Despite various substitutions and rearrangements, the user remains unable to resolve the integration challenge. The conversation highlights the complexities of integrating forces that vary with velocity in physics.
Danny252
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Not specifically a homework assignment, but for a personal project - but it's almost entirely parallel with my Physics course at the moment, and is mostly a homework-style question!

I have an object acclerating due to a force, experiencing friction. Both the accelerating and friction forces depend on velocity.

I would expect the result for v to tend to a certain value as time increases, similar to terminal velocity.

I know this should involve integrating acceleration with respect to time - but the combination of questionable integration confidence and a cold mean I just can't fathom the next step.

Homework Equations


Accelerating force = k/v (decreases as v increases)
Friction force = a + bv + cv^{2} (increases as v increases)
Total force = k/v - (a + bv + cv^{2})
Acceleration = \sum F/m
Velocity = \int a = \int (k/v - (a + bv + cv^2))/m

The Attempt at a Solution


My attempts at integration end with a 3rd degree polynomial:
(k\;ln(v) - (av + bv^2/2 + cv^3/3))/m
Whereas I expect t in the equation, and this does not lead to a limit (for sufficiently large values it gives negative speed).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm sure that I'm missing something, but I just can't see what it is. I've tried various substitutions and re-arranging the equation, but to no avail.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top