Non-linear differential equation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion revolves around solving the non-linear differential equation V'' - k*V^-1/2 = 0. The transformation u = V' leads to the equation u(du/dV) = V^-1/2*k, which requires integration to express the final answer in terms of V. The goal is to demonstrate that k is proportional to V^3/2. The resulting expressions involve implicit solutions that are not easily solvable for v(t), despite Mathematica providing a manageable form for integration.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of non-linear differential equations
  • Familiarity with separation of variables technique
  • Proficiency in calculus, particularly integration
  • Experience with Mathematica for symbolic computation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the method of separation of variables in differential equations
  • Learn how to manipulate and solve non-linear differential equations
  • Explore implicit solutions and their implications in differential equations
  • Practice using Mathematica for solving differential equations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineering students who are working with differential equations and seeking to understand non-linear dynamics and integration techniques.

pd1zz13
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
The original equation is:

V'' - k*V^-1/2 = 0

I then said u = V' therefore u' = u(du/dV)

so the new equation is :

u(du/dV) = V^-1/2*k

Im a little rusty on separation of variables but I got a u in the final answer which means I have to integrate again since I need the final answer in terms of V.

The goal is to prove k is proportional to V^3/2

Am i doing this right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That's a common way to do it and you're left with:

[tex]u^2=4k\sqrt{v}+c[/tex]

or:

[tex]\left(\frac{dv}{dt}\right)^2=4k\sqrt{v}+c[/tex]

taking square roots, separate variable again and get:

[tex]\frac{dv}{\sqrt{4k\sqrt{v}+c}}=\pm dt[/tex]

That however looks kinda' messy to integrate although Mathematica gives a nice expression for the left side but then you get an implicit expression for v in terms of t:

[tex]g(v)=\pm(t+c_2)[/tex]

which is not solvable explicitly for v(t). Doesn't look like it anyway.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K