Solving for time in 1D Kinematics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving for time in the equation P = P' + V't + (at^2)/2, where all variables except time are known. The user expresses frustration over not recalling how to isolate time after several years away from mathematics and physics. They are working on a programming project involving collision detection for a bouncing ball and need to account for acceleration in their calculations. Despite initial progress, they encounter challenges in accurately determining collision times due to changing acceleration. The user seeks assistance from the forum community, emphasizing their eagerness to learn and improve their skills.
Selroth
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Short Version:

It's been several years since I last practiced any mathematics or physics. I'm trying to get my mind as sharp as it was back then. I'm sure the solution is obvious, and just under my nose...

I remember:

P = P' + V't + (at^2)/2

Where P is position, P' is initial position, V' is initial Velocity, a is acceleration, and t is time.

Solve for t. All other variables are known.

I feel so embarrassed I don't remember how to do this.

Long Version (programmers may be interested):

Before I joined the military I had a good hobby of computer programming, and did well with mathematics and physics. Now, my mental capacity is at an all time low, and I thought picking my hobby back up again would do me good. The past few weeks have been great! But then I hit a brick wall, and 2 days of Googling and still no answer is starting to affect my enthusiasm. It's not like me to sign up to a physics forum and create an account just to ask one question, but perhaps it's not so bad to call upon the help of charitable others if you're thankful.

Anyway, my current project is simple, and nothing special. It's not meant to be. It'd not the product I expect to benefit from; it's the journey. So, it's really just a bouncing ball – I wanted to implement some collision detection ideas I've had. My main idea is instead of looking for collision by seeing if collidable objects are overlapping and correct them, calculate when they'll collide. Queue a collision event in a timeline using that time, and execute the collision reaction code once that time comes.

This is my latest build that's a good example: http://selroth.draconity.org/Projects/Active/White Sands/Javascript/20110930/

The vertical chart on the right is the timeline, and you can see the collision events crossing the cyan line at the moment the ball collides with the wall.

However, it's actually flawed/not fully functional in that aspect yet, despite initial impressions. Because the time of collision is always changing when there's an acceleration, it's difficult for the program to move the timeline to the exact time it needs to be at. Currently, it takes the time simply by dividing the distance between the wall and the ball by the ball's velocity.

I'm at a point where I need it to account for the ball's acceleration too – the event marks on the timeline shouldn't move around.

(current version can be found here: http://selroth.draconity.org/Projects/Active/White Sands/Javascript/Current/ which has better comments and cleaner code if you want to look at the sourcecode yourself [Chromers can Shift+Ctrl+J, Firefoxers can FireBug, IE or Safari'ers can get a better browser =P] )

Otherwise, this is the function I'm having trouble with:
Code:
	//Find the time of collision for either the top or bottom walls
	function findYCollision(){ return (yVel < 0) ? "top wall" : "bottom wall"; }	
	function findYCollisionTime(){
		var d = (findYCollision() == "top wall") ? yPos :  400 - yPos;
		var t = gameTime + (d / Math.abs(yVel));
		return (t > gameTime) ? t : gameTime;
	}

I can't figure out how to rewrite t = ______ to where it accounts for acceleration (would be known as yAcc in this case)

I am extremely grateful for any replies, and have marked this topic for email notifications! Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to Physics Forums :smile:
Selroth said:
That makes me want to scream and bang my head against the wall! :mad:
Ah, and welcome (back) to the world of physics :biggrin:
 
Redbelly98 said:
Welcome to Physics Forums :smile:

Ah, and welcome (back) to the world of physics :biggrin:

Thanks! :)
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top