Linearization and energy equation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter tamtam402
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Linearization
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on linearizing the force equation for a body falling in water, specifically using the expression bv^2 to analyze motion. The linearized equation derived is 2b(ve)(Δv) = ma, leading to the terminal speed equation ve = sqrt(mg/2b). The user seeks to apply the conservation of energy approach to verify their results, specifically how to incorporate the work done by the linearized force into the energy equation. The challenge lies in correctly expressing the work term in the context of the energy balance.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's second law (F = ma)
  • Familiarity with linearization techniques in physics
  • Knowledge of conservation of energy principles
  • Basic calculus for integration and differential equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Learn about linearization in dynamics and its applications in engineering
  • Study the conservation of energy in non-conservative systems
  • Explore the derivation of work done by variable forces
  • Investigate advanced topics in fluid dynamics related to buoyancy and drag forces
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics and engineering, particularly those interested in fluid dynamics, motion analysis, and energy conservation methods.

tamtam402
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Hey guys.

We were given a problem, which was to consider bv^2 as the force acting upwards on a body falling in water. We were asked to find the depth at which a body entering the water at 5 * ve (terminal speed) would end up with a speed of 1.1 * ve.

Starting from -bv^2 + mg = ma, the first step is to linearize the non-linear expression bv^2 at the equilibrium point (ma = 0).

The equation at the chosen equilibrium point becomes b(ve)^2 = mg

The linearization gives:

b(ve)^2 + 2b(ve)(Δv).Substitution into the original equation gives -b(ve)^2 - 2b(ve)(Δv) + mg = ma.

We know that at the chosen equilibrium point, b(ve)^2 = mg. Thus, mg - b(ve)^2 = 0. I can remove these 2 expressions in the above equation to get the linearized equation at the equilibrium point ve:

Linearized upward force at terminal speed = 2b(ve)(Δv) = ma

Also our teacher showed us that the 2b(ve) expression must be used to find the value of the linearized ve point. Thus, using the equilibrium equation above but substituting b(ve)^2 by the new constant coefficient 2b(ve) which multiplies ve, we get 2b(ve)*ve = mg -> ve = sqrt(mg/2b)

Given the above equation in bold, I was able to solve for height h by using the following substitution:

a = v * dv / dh

Using this substitution I could integrate on both sides of the above equation and solve for h pretty easily. I confirmed with my teacher that our answer was correct.

Here's my question:

I would like to solve this problem by using the conservation of energy equation instead of solving the F = ma equation. Before my teacher confirmed that we had the right answer, I wanted to solve the problem using this other method because I could've verified my answer by myself. However, I don't know how to solve this. I put the initial energy + the work on the left hand side, and the final energy on the right hand side.

Assuming the object falls into the water at a height h at an initial speed of 5ve,

V1 = mgh
T1 = m/2 * (5ve)^2
Work = 2b(ve)(Δv) * h

V2 = 0
T2 = m/2 * (1.1ve)^2

V1 + T1 - Work = V2 + T2

I don't know what to do with the expression in bold, for the work of the linearized force. Obviously an integral is needed, but if I integrate as I specified above, I have to divide both sides by Δv since dv is on the right side of the equation. I end up with 2b(ve)h = stuff. The left side of this equation is NOT equal to the Force times acceleration because the force has a Δv on the left side.

So, how can I find the "correct" work to put into the equation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I understand linearisation is mostly used in engineering, since real-life systems must use these approximations. I'm going to assume this is why physicists aren't really comfortable answering my question. Does anyone know a forum that could be better suited for this engineering question?

Thanks again.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
751
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K