Take v(t) and h(t) to make v(h)

  • I
  • Thread starter Adoniram
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the difficulty of creating a new function, v(h), from two existing functions, v(t) and h(t), that do not have simple inverses. The height function, h(t), is an exponential function with no local minima, making it challenging to combine with v(t). Suggestions are made to fit a polynomial or a spline function to h(t) in order to create a table of t as a function of h. The goal is to integrate a function, F(t,h), to find the work done by a force over a certain height, with the hope of simplifying the integration by converting to a single variable, dh. However, the quantity (b+k)/k may not be 1,
  • #1
Adoniram
94
6
So I have some very complicated functions that do not have trivial inverses, but I'd really like to make a new function from them. What I have is:
v(t): velocity as a function of time
h(t): height as a function of time (never mind that is says hb)
upload_2017-2-10_10-52-29.png


What I want:
v(h): velocity as a function of height

The height function goes as an exponential function, so there are no local minima to worry about:
upload_2017-2-10_10-51-4.png


Other than fitting a polynomial to the h(t) function (which I'm not sure would be invertible anyway), does anyone know of a good way to combine these functions into v(h)?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I don't know if there is a closed-form analytical solution, but since you are sure that h(t) is monotonically increasing, you could make a table of t as a function of h and fit a function through it.
From the looks of it, I would first try taking a logarithm of height and see if a regression line gives you the accuracy you want.
If that doesn't work, you can fit a spline function through it and make the resolution as good as you need. (A spline would only be practical if you make computer code to implement it.)
 
Last edited:
  • #3
How/where do you need v(h)? It is easy to calculate individual points, and you can also calculate the derivative v'(h) analytically for every point where you know t.
If (b+k)/k is a small integer, it is possible to write down t(h) in closed form, otherwise it is probably impossible.

Introducing new variables for t-independent stuff would make the equations much more readable.
 
  • #4
The reason I want this v(h) form is so that I can integrate a function which relies, in part, on v(t).

So... I have another function:
[tex]F(t,h)=c_1v(t)+c_2g(h)[/tex]
where [itex]c_1[/itex] and [itex]c_2[/itex] are constants and [itex]g(h)[/itex] is another well-understood function of height.
What I want to find is:
[tex]\int_{h=0}^{h_f}F dh[/tex]
to find the work done by this force over some height. And since velocity and height are well-defined functions, I figured it would make my life easier to integrate over a single variable, [itex]dh[/itex], instead of trying to figure out how to get work from a function of both time and height.

So, if I could get [itex]t(h)[/itex] and plug that into [itex]v(t(h))[/itex], my life would be easier...

Unfortunately, the quantity [itex](b+k)/k[/itex] will be, at best, [itex]1[/itex] so it can't be ignored...
 
  • #5
Ummm... maybe I could do this (please comment your thoughts!):

[tex]\int_{h=0}^{h_f} F dh = \int_{h=0}^{h_f} F dh \frac{dt}{dt} = \int_{t=0}^{t_f} F v(t) dt[/tex]

Does that work, or is there a different conversion for the limits of integration or differential element that I'm forgetting?
 
  • #6
Do you need it to be closed form or can you use numerical methods?
 
  • #7
FactChecker said:
Do you need it to be closed form or can you use numerical methods?
Numerical results are perfectly fine!
 
  • #8
Adoniram said:
Unfortunately, the quantity (b+k)/k will be, at best, 1 so it can't be ignored...
If it is 1, h(t) is a polynomial of degree 2, and easy to invert.

Numerically, you can just integrate over t and don't need anything special.
 
  • #9
Yeah the problem is, it'll never be 1 in reality. It'll be something like (0.05+k)/k which is why it's so hard to invert.
 
  • #10
All that doesn't matter if you just need a numerical value for the integral.
 

FAQ: Take v(t) and h(t) to make v(h)

What does "Take v(t) and h(t) to make v(h)" mean?

This phrase is asking for the relationship between the velocity (v) and height (h) over time (t). It is asking for a mathematical expression that can be used to calculate the velocity at a specific height.

How do I calculate v(h) from v(t) and h(t)?

To calculate v(h), you can use the derivative of the position function h(t) with respect to time. This will give you the instantaneous velocity at a specific height.

Can I use any units for v(t) and h(t) when calculating v(h)?

Yes, as long as the units for v(t) and h(t) are consistent, you can use any units. Just make sure to use the same units when calculating v(h) to get an accurate result.

Is there a specific formula for calculating v(h) from v(t) and h(t)?

Yes, the formula for calculating v(h) is the derivative of h(t) with respect to time, which is represented as dh(t)/dt. This will give you the instantaneous velocity at a specific height.

What are the applications of using v(t) and h(t) to calculate v(h)?

This mathematical relationship is often used in physics and engineering to solve problems involving motion and trajectories. It can be applied to various real-world scenarios such as projectile motion, free fall, and rocket propulsion.

Back
Top