I Kinematics cases with non-constant acceleration

Click For Summary
In kinematic problems with non-constant acceleration, the relationship between acceleration, velocity, and position can be complex. When acceleration is a function of position, velocity becomes position-dependent, while time-dependent acceleration leads to velocity values that vary with time. For cases where acceleration depends on both position and time, double integration is required to derive position and velocity functions, although analytical solutions can be challenging. It is often more effective to solve the first-order differential equation for velocity before integrating to find position. Numerical methods may be necessary for complex equations, as analytical solutions are not always feasible.
fog37
Messages
1,566
Reaction score
108
TL;DR
Kinematics cases with non-constant acceleration
Hello,

I understand that, for 1D kinematic problems where the acceleration function ##a_x## is initially given along with the initial conditions, we can use calculus (differentiation and integration) to get the position ##x(t)## and velocity ##v_x (t)## of the moving object.
  • When the acceleration is a function of position only, the velocity will also be a function of position and not depend on time, i.e. the object will always have the same velocity when it is found at a particular position.
  • When the acceleration is a function of time ##t## only, regardless of where the object's position, the object's velocity will have specific values at instants of time after motion starts (Ex: a rocket accelerating moving upward has a time-dependent acceleration...or is it an example of position dependent acceleration?)
If the acceleration depended instead on two independent variables, for ex: ##a_x (v,t)= 3t^2 +v^3##, we would need to perform double integration to get position and velocity function as a function of time. Is it that simple or am I missing some subtle points? Not all function can be analytically integrated or differentiated...

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For your example it means a differential equation of
\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}-3t^2-(\frac{dx}{dt})^3=0
We have to solve this equation to know x(t) which also tells us v(t) and a(t). Usually it is very difficult to get analytical solution but we may get numerical solution by computer.
 
  • Like
Likes fog37 and vanhees71
Thank you.

At the end of the day, the equation to solve remains $$\frac {d^2 x} {dt^2}=...$$ with whatever is found on the right-had side, which is generally derivatives of the variable ##x## of different order...
 
fog37 said:
Thank you.

At the end of the day, the equation to solve remains $$\frac {d^2 x} {dt^2}=...$$ with whatever is found on the right-had side, which is generally derivatives of the variable ##x## of different order...
Not necessarily. Depending on the differential equation you have, it might be easier to solve ##\dfrac{dv}{dt}=\dots~## then integrate to find ##x(t)##.
In your example, you will have to solve ##\dfrac{dv_x}{dt}=3t^2+v_x^3## which is still not separable but at least it's a first-order differential equation.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and fog37
Thread 'The rocket equation, one more time'
I already posted a similar thread a while ago, but this time I want to focus exclusively on one single point that is still not clear to me. I just came across this problem again in Modern Classical Mechanics by Helliwell and Sahakian. Their setup is exactly identical to the one that Taylor uses in Classical Mechanics: a rocket has mass m and velocity v at time t. At time ##t+\Delta t## it has (according to the textbooks) velocity ##v + \Delta v## and mass ##m+\Delta m##. Why not ##m -...

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
2K