Points of inflection on acceleration graph

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on identifying points of inflection on an acceleration graph, specifically questioning whether there are more than just t = 3 and 5 seconds. It emphasizes that points of inflection occur when the second derivative of velocity is zero, and that the first and second derivatives must exist and be continuous. Additionally, there is confusion regarding calculating displacement from a velocity-time graph, particularly about accounting for areas below the x-axis as negative. The conversation also touches on the average velocity formula, clarifying that it is only valid under constant acceleration, with examples provided to support this point. Overall, the participants are seeking clarity on these concepts in the context of physics problems.
member 731016
Homework Statement
Please see below
Relevant Equations
Please see below
EDIT: For this part(b) of this problem,
1676497354870.png

The solution is
1676508669551.png

1676508731673.png

However, isn't there more points of inflection than just ##t = 3,5 s ##? Points of inflection is when ##x'' = a = 0## so it should be ## 3 ≤ t ≤ 5 s##

I also have a question about part(d):

The solution is
1676511464795.png

However, could I tried solving for the position by finding the area under the velocity curve from t = 0 to t = 6 sec.

## 0.5 \times 3 \times 8 + 2 \times 8 + 1\times 4 + 1 \times 1 \times 4 = 34 m ##.

I don't understand what I have done wrong since I should be able to get the correct answer from areas.

Can someone please help?

Many thanks!
 

Attachments

  • 1676497569871.png
    1676497569871.png
    14.1 KB · Views: 138
  • 1676498398909.png
    1676498398909.png
    3.1 KB · Views: 124
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Callumnc1 said:
## 0.5 \times 2.5 \times 8 = 10 m ##
2.5? Look again.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
haruspex said:
2.5? Look again.
Thank you for your reply @haruspex! Do you please know the answer to my new confusion?

Many thanks!
 
Callumnc1 said:
isn't there more points of inflection than just t=3,5s?
It should not refer to inflection points here. The first and second derivatives of v would need to exist and be continuous.
Callumnc1 said:
## 0.5 \times 3 \times 8 + 2 \times 8 + 1\times 4 + 1 \times 1 \times 4 = 34 m ##.
For the purpose of finding e.g. displacement from a v-t graph, you have to count areas below the x axis as negative.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
haruspex said:
It should not refer to inflection points here. The first and second derivatives of v would need to exist and be continuous.

For the purpose of finding e.g. displacement from a v-t graph, you have to count areas below the x axis as negative.
Thank you for your reply @haruspex !

Why would the second derivative of v need to exist and be continuous?

Also I still don't understand how I calculated the displacement wrong since there is no negative velocities from t = 0 to t = 6 sec

1676515381951.png

Many thanks!
 

Attachments

  • 1676515318649.png
    1676515318649.png
    5.5 KB · Views: 90
Callumnc1 said:
Why would the second derivative of v need to exist and be continuous?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection_point
Callumnc1 said:
there is no negative velocities from t = 0 to t = 6 sec
How true, but you fooled me with the last two terms in
## 0.5 \times 3 \times 8 + 2 \times 8 + 1\times 4 + 1 \times 1 \times 4##.
If stopping at 6sec, where do those come from?
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
haruspex said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection_point

How true, but you fooled me with the last two terms in

If stopping at 6sec, where do those come from?
Thank you for your reply @haruspex!

Sorry I made a slight mistake with the last term. It should be

## 0.5 \times 3 \times 8 + 2 \times 8 + 1\times 4 + 0.5 \times 1 \times 4 = 34 m ##.

The last two terms ## 1\times 4 + 0.5 \times 1 \times 4 = 34 m ## are accounted for here on the graph in red and orange.
1676516831971.png

The solution seems to account for only the orange triangle (##1 \times 4##) giving ##32 m##. However, I though displacement should the total area under the velocity curve over the interval ##[0, 6] s## so I included the red triangle to get ##34 m##

Let me know what you think!

Many thanks!
 

Attachments

  • 1676516622731.png
    1676516622731.png
    17.1 KB · Views: 142
Callumnc1 said:
Thank you for your reply @haruspex!

Sorry I made a slight mistake with the last term. It should be

## 0.5 \times 3 \times 8 + 2 \times 8 + 1\times 4 + 0.5 \times 1 \times 4 = 34 m ##.

The last two terms ## 1\times 4 + 0.5 \times 1 \times 4 = 34 m ## are accounted for here on the graph in red and orange.
View attachment 322355
The solution seems to account for only the orange triangle (##1 \times 4##) giving ##32 m##. However, I though displacement should the total area under the velocity curve over the interval ##[0, 6] s## so I included the red triangle to get ##34 m##

Let me know what you think!

Many thanks!
Well, when you put it like that, I agree.
The book mistake is that they found the average speed between 5s and 7s, instead of between 5s and 6s.
 
  • Like
Likes nasu and member 731016
haruspex said:
Well, when you put it like that, I agree.
The book mistake is that they found the average speed between 5s and 7s, instead of between 5s and 6s.
Interesting that makes a difference to their calculation! Thank you for your help @haruspex!

You mention average speed which makes me wonder why they could not have just used the average velocity over the entire interval from t = 0 to t = 6 sec :

##v_{avg} = \frac {v_i + v_f}{2} = \frac {x_f - x_i}{t} ##
##\frac {0+ 4}{2} = \frac {x_f - 0}{6} ##
## 12m = x_f ##

I now realize this because the average velocity formula ##v_{avg} = \frac {v_i + v_f}{2}## is only valid for constant acceleration. But the acceleration varies over the interval.

I'm not sure how to prove that the average velocity formula is only valid for constant acceleration thought.

Many thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Callumnc1 said:
how to prove that the average velocity formula is only valid for constant acceleration
You cannot prove it wrong in general because it might just happen to give the right answer sometimes. But to prove it is not a valid method you only have to construct one example where it gives the wrong answer.
 
  • Like
Likes MatinSAR and member 731016
  • #11
haruspex said:
You cannot prove it wrong in general because it might just happen to give the right answer sometimes. But to prove it is not a valid method you only have to construct one example where it gives the wrong answer.
Thank very much for your help @haruspex !
 
  • #12
Callumnc1 said:
I'm not sure how to prove that the average velocity formula is only valid for constant acceleration thought.
You can prove that it is only right for constant acceleration.
For constant acceleration we have two main equations: (If we have ##t_0=0##)
##x=x_0+v_{0}t+\frac 1 2 at^2##
##v=v_0+at##
Using ##v=v_0+at## we know that ##a=\frac {v-v_0} {t}##. We put it in first equation then we have:
##x=x_0+v_{0}t+\frac 1 2 \frac {v-v_0} {t}t^2##
##x=x_0+v_{0}t+\frac 1 2 (v-v_0)t##
##x=x_0+v_{0}t+\frac 1 2 vt -\frac 1 2 v_{0}t##
##x-x_0=\frac 1 2 vt +\frac 1 2 v_{0}t##
##x-x_0=\frac 1 2 (v+v_0)t##
Compare it with ##v_{avg}=\frac {x-x_0} {t}##→ ##x-x_0=v_{avg}t##

You can see that ##v_{avg}=\frac 1 2 (v+v_0)##
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
  • #13
MatinSAR said:
You can prove that it is only right for constant acceleration.
For constant acceleration we have two main equations: (If we have ##t_0=0##)
##x=x_0+v_{0}t+\frac 1 2 at^2##
##v=v_0+at##
Using ##v=v_0+at## we know that ##a=\frac {v-v_0} {t}##. We put it in first equation then we have:
##x=x_0+v_{0}t+\frac 1 2 \frac {v-v_0} {t}t^2##
##x=x_0+v_{0}t+\frac 1 2 (v-v_0)t##
##x=x_0+v_{0}t+\frac 1 2 vt -\frac 1 2 v_{0}t##
##x-x_0=\frac 1 2 vt +\frac 1 2 v_{0}t##
##x-x_0=\frac 1 2 (v+v_0)t##
Compare it with ##v_{avg}=\frac {x-x_0} {t}##→ ##x-x_0=v_{avg}t##

You can see that ##v_{avg}=\frac 1 2 (v+v_0)##
Thank you for your help @MatinSAR !
 
Back
Top