Solving Complex Velocity from Particle Falling in Gravity

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around deriving the equations of motion for a particle falling under gravity with air drag proportional to the square of velocity. The initial derivation leads to a complex velocity, prompting concerns about the sign of the drag force in the equations. It is clarified that the drag force should be subtracted from gravitational force, leading to the correct formulation of m(d²x/dt²) = mg - k(dx/dt)². The participants also note that either the drag force or the potential energy sign can be adjusted to yield correct results, but not both simultaneously. Ultimately, the confusion stems from the directionality of forces and the definitions of the coordinate system used in the derivation.
fobos3
Messages
33
Reaction score
1
I'm trying to derive the equations of motion for a particle falling in a uniform gravitational fill with air drag proportional to the square of velocity. However I'm getting the velocity as a complex number. Here is what I've done

The force of friction is F=-k\left(\dfrac{dx}{dt}\right)^2\dfrac{\textbf{v}}{||\textbf{v}||}=-k\left(\dfrac{dx}{dt}\right)^2

We put the particle stationary at x=0

The Lagrangian is \mathcal{L}=\dfrac{1}{2}m\left(\dfrac{dx}{dt}\right)^2-mgx

\dfrac{d}{dt}\left(\dfrac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{x}}\right)-\dfrac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x}=-k\left(\dfrac{dx}{dt}\right)^2

m\dfrac{d^2 x}{dt^2}+mg=-k\left(\dfrac{dx}{dt}\right)^2

If we put c=\dfrac{k}{m}

\dfrac{d^2x}{dt^2}+c\left(\dfrac{dx}{dt}\right)^2+g=0

We put p=\dfrac{dx}{dt}

We have \dfrac{d^2x}{dt^2}=\dfrac{dp}{dt}=\dfrac{dp}{dx}\dfrac{dx}{dt}=\dfrac{dp}{dx}p

The differential equation becomes

\dfrac{dp}{dx}p+cp^2+g=0

\dfrac{p}{cp^2+g}\dfrac{dp}{dx}=-1

\int\dfrac{p}{cp^2+g}\,dp=-x

To solve the integral we put u=cp^2+g

\dfrac{du}{dp}=2cp

p=\dfrac{1}{2c}\dfrac{du}{dp}

\dfrac{1}{2c}\int \dfrac{1}{u}\,du=-x

\int \dfrac{1}{u}\,du=\ln |u|=\ln u because u>0

\dfrac{1}{2c}\ln (cp^2+g)+A=-x

A(cp^2+g)=e^{-2cx}

At t=0,x=0,p=0

Ag=1

A=\dfrac{1}{g}

\dfrac{c}{g}p^2+1=e^{-2cx}

p^2=\dfrac{g(e^{-2cx}-1)}{c}

Now the sign of \dfrac{g(e^{-2cx}-1)}{c} is determined by e^{-2cx}-1 which is not necessary positive definite.

In fact if we put c=1,x=1 we get e^{-2}-1<0 which means that p\in \mathbb{C}

But p=\dfrac{dx}{dt} which makes no sense at all. Did I do something wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
fobos3 said:
\dfrac{d}{dt}\left(\dfrac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{x}}\right)-\dfrac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x}=-k\left(\dfrac{dx}{dt}\right)^2

The sign of the drag force in the above equation is wrong.
By the way, I don't see why we have to use Lagrangian here, since Newtonian method is much more simple.

EDIT: Actually you may change either the sign of the drag force or the sign of the potential energy, but only one of them. Both yield the same correct equation.
 
Last edited:
fobos3 said:
m\dfrac{d^2 x}{dt^2}+mg=-k\left(\dfrac{dx}{dt}\right)^2

I think you have a sign issue here. Shouldn't it be:

m\dfrac{d^2 x}{dt^2}=mg-k\left(\dfrac{dx}{dt}\right)^2

Mass*acceleration equals the sum of the forces. The net force is gravity minus drag.
 
hikaru1221 said:
The sign of the drag force in the above equation is wrong.
By the way, I don't see why we have to use Lagrangian here, since Newtonian method is much more simple.

EDIT: Actually you may change either the sign of the drag force or the sign of the potential energy, but only one of them. Both yield the same correct equation.

Yes I see that now. Can you explain where I went wrong in my derivation of the friction.This is what I thought

F=-k\dot{x}^2 \hat{\textbf{v}}

\hat{\textbf{v}}=\dfrac{\textbf{v}}{||\textbf{v}||}=\dfrac{(\dot{x})}{\dot{x}}=(1)

Where the brackets denote a vector in the x direction.

Now obviously \hat{\textbf{v}}=(1) is wrong, because the particle accelerates in the negative direction, but why?

Edit
Never mind. I find out on my own.
 
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with \vec{F}=-kv^2\hat{v}. But you must be careful when jotting down F = -kv^2 (*) (that means F<0). Since the ball is falling, the force must act upwards. So when you write (*), that means the positive direction of x-axis is downward.
Now in order that potential energy V = mgx, the x-axis must point upwards, which is inconsistent with (*) as explained above.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top