Kinematic equation without time

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding a kinematic equation that omits time, specifically V02 + 2a(x - x0) = 2V0V + V2. The user struggles with the term 2V0V and seeks clarification on the steps to simplify the equation. It is revealed that an error occurred in expanding (V - V0)², which led to confusion in the algebraic manipulation. Suggestions include writing each term separately during expansion to avoid mistakes and counting terms to ensure accuracy. The conversation highlights the importance of careful algebraic practices in solving kinematic equations.
Bakatota
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I understand most of the kinematic equations, but there is just this one equation that omits time from the equation. I always end up with V02+2a(x - x0) = 2V0V + V2

The 2V0V part is what I don't understand how to get rid of. So if you please could you do the equation with steps , I would be very grateful. Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What are the steps you took to get to that equation?
 
t = (V - V0)/a

x - x0 = V0((V-V0)/a) + .5a((V - V0/a)2)

x - x0 = (V0V - V02)/a + (V2 + V02)/2a

2a(x - x0) = 2V0V -2V02 + V2 +V02

V02+2a(x - x0) = 2V0V + V2
 
What do you get if you expand ##(V-V_0)^2##?

Edit: By the way, something seems to be wrong with the brackets in the last term of your second equation. I assumed that was just a typo, but if they look right to you then you need tk think about that too.
 
Last edited:
Oh I see what I did wrong. As you intimated, I did not expand (V - V0)2 correctly. Now I have -2V0V to cancel out.
 
That's right. Algebraic slips can be hard to spot. I sometimes write each term on a separate line when I'm expanding brackets, which makes it easier for me to not get distracted when I'm doing it. Then when I'm collecting terms together I put a little tick above each one as I copy it on to the next line so I don't lose one or double one up by accident. You can also count terms. You know that ##(V-V_0)^2## should give you three terms when expanded - that would have caught this error because your expansion only had two.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
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...
Back
Top