Solving for Velocity as a function of height (y) with quadratic drag

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the equation of motion for a baseball in free fall with quadratic drag, ultimately seeking the speed as a function of height. The equation of motion is established as mdv/dt = -cv^2 + mg, leading to a form where v is expressed in terms of y. The integrals are set up, but the user encounters issues with imaginary solutions when attempting to solve for V. A key correction is noted, indicating that a square term was missed in the integration process, which is crucial for obtaining the correct relationship. The conversation emphasizes the importance of careful algebraic manipulation and integration in solving physics problems involving drag.
Yosty22
Messages
182
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement



Write down the equation of motion for the downward journey of a baseball subject to quadratic drag. Find v as a function of y and, given that the downward journey starts at ymax (given below), show that the speed when the ball returns to the ground is:

vterv0 / sqrt(vter2 + v02)

Homework Equations



From a previous problem I worked out, I proved: ymax = (vter2/2g)*ln(1+(v02[/sub]/vter2))

The Attempt at a Solution



I set up the equation of motion as mdv/dt = -cv2 + mg. Vter occurs when the two forces balance, so solving for c in terms of vter, I get c = mg/vter2.

Substituting in for c, cancelling out the mass terms and factoring out a g, I get:

dv/dt = g(1-(v2/vter2)).

Then, dv/dt = v dv/dy (since I want v as a function of y), I can set up the integral.

v*dv/dy = g(1-(v2/vter2))

Then, I can multiply the dy over to the other side and divide everything in the parenthesis over to the left hand side and integrate the left hand side from 0 to V. Since it starts from rest at the top of its journey, V corresponds to the speed of the ball at the bottom when it hits the ground.

Solving the integrals, I get:

-vter/2 * ln(1-(V2/vter2)) = gy

However, trying to solve for V gives me imaginary solutions..

What am I doing wrong here? I checked other online sources for some help to see where I could have possibly gone wrong, and my solution so far agrees with what other online sources have. I went online to look for solutions to where I am getting stuck, and I stumbled upon this site:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/fall2009/managed/physics110a/documents/Solution2.pdf

If you scroll down to question 2.42, you see them get to the same solution I did (even though I did some more work to get there it seems), but they substitute ymax in for y. However, when they make the substitution, they only have one factor of vter in the coefficient before the natural log term even though ymax depends on vter2. I worked this problem out on my own and got to exactly where they did, but Why could they just get rid of one term of vter? If I plug in the ymax equation, I get:

-ln(1-(V2/vter2)) = vter*ln(1+(v02/vter2))

What happened here or where did I go wrong along the way?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yosty22 said:
v*dv/dy = g(1-(v2/vter2))

Then, I can multiply the dy over to the other side and divide everything in the parenthesis over to the left hand side and integrate the left hand side from 0 to V. Since it starts from rest at the top of its journey, V corresponds to the speed of the ball at the bottom when it hits the ground.

Solving the integrals, I get:

-vter/2 * ln(1-(V2/vter2)) = gy


You miss a square. It is -vter2/2 * ln(1-(V2/vter2)) = gy

ehild
 
Yosty22 said:
Solving the integrals, I get:

-vter/2 * ln(1-(V2/vter2)) = gy

However, trying to solve for V gives me imaginary solutions..

Should the right hand side be g(y-y0)?
You've got the right ideas of how to solve this.
Usually I have to rework these a few different times until I get it right.
You could also try assuming a solution of some form, my guess would be y=a-be^{kt}.
and use y(0)=y0, v(0)=0, a(0)=-mg to find a,b and k.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
40
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K