Solving linear acceleration for time.

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the time variable in the context of linear acceleration and displacement. The original equation used is d = i*t + 0.5*a*t^2, from which the time equation t = (sqrt(i^2 + 2ad) - i) / a is derived. The key to this derivation involves completing the square, a standard technique in solving quadratic equations. By manipulating the terms and applying the quadratic formula, one can arrive at the desired expression for time. Understanding these algebraic manipulations is essential for accurate collision detection in programming.
GemmaT
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I'm currently developing a program which solves the displacement of an object using the standard acceleration equation [d=i*t + 0.5*a*t^2], where i=initial velocity, t=time and a=acceleration.

As the need has arisen to determine the time at which an object reaches a particular displacement (collision detection), I am currently using the equation [t = (sqrt(i^2 + 2ad) - i) / a] in order to solve for t.

The problem is, I cannot for the life of me see how the second equation is derived from the first using standard algebraic manipulations. Whilst my program operates correctly using the aforementioned equations, it would be nice if someone could explain the manipulations involved in order to procure this derivation.

Gemma.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
GemmaT said:
I'm currently developing a program which solves the displacement of an object using the standard acceleration equation [d=i*t + 0.5*a*t^2], where i=initial velocity, t=time and a=acceleration.

As the need has arisen to determine the time at which an object reaches a particular displacement (collision detection), I am currently using the equation [t = (sqrt(i^2 + 2ad) - i) / a] in order to solve for t.

The problem is, I cannot for the life of me see how the second equation is derived from the first using standard algebraic manipulations. Whilst my program operates correctly using the aforementioned equations, it would be nice if someone could explain the manipulations involved in order to procure this derivation.

Gemma.

Hey GemmaT and welcome to the forums.

For quadratic equations, the main step is to complete the square. Let's look at a standard quadratic equation:

ax^2 + bx + c = 0. Want to solve for x.

Now what we do is complete the square for the ax^2 + bx terms. Move c to the other side.

ax^2 + bx = -c.
x^2 + (b/a)x = -c/a (Divide both sides by a)

This is where we complete the square. We know that (x + d)^2 = x^2 + 2dx + d^2 using standard expansion. What we want to do is match up the 2d with (b/a) which means 2d = b/a which means d = b/2a. Doing this we get:

x^2 + (b/a)x = -c/a goes to
x^2 + (b/a)x + (b/2a)^2 = -c/a + (b/2a)^2 (Add (b/2a)^2 to both sides)
(x + (b/2a))^2 = (b/2a)^2 - (c/a) (Using result above)

(x + (b/2a)) = +-SQRT( (b/2a)^2 - (c/a)) (Taking square roots and remembering positive and negative solutions)

x = -b/2a +- SQRT((b/2a)^2 - (c/a)). Now factor out the 2a term and put it on the denominator and we get

x = (-b +- SQRT(b^2 - 4ac))/2a which is the quadratic formula.

Using the appropriate a,b,c for your problem should give you the right result.
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
889
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
650
Replies
5
Views
866