I Time Derivatives: Hi Guys, Am I on the Right Track?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mishal0488
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivatives Time
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on clarifying the understanding of time derivatives. The original poster seeks confirmation on their approach after being away from academia for years. Respondents note that both theta and "a" are functions of time, suggesting the expression appears correct but is difficult to interpret due to unclear notation. They recommend using a simple equals sign instead of a right arrow for clarity. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of clear notation in mathematical expressions.
Mishal0488
Messages
20
Reaction score
1
Hi Guys

I just want to make sure that I am on the right track, with regards to time derivatives.
I have been out of university for many years and I have become a bit rusty.

Please refer to the attached image and let me know if I am on the right track.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    4.4 KB · Views: 114
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not clear from your notation what you are trying to say. Is ##\theta## a function of time?
 
Both theta and "a" are a function of time
 
Mishal0488 said:
Both theta and "a" are a function of time
The expression looks right (it's hard to see the dots). But, you should use a simple equals sign ##=##, rather than ##\Rightarrow##.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Mishal0488

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Time derivative using the quotient rule
Replies
1
Views
801
A Lagrangian Multipliers with messy Solution
Replies
2
Views
625
A Is the Approach for Verifying Lagrangian Acceptable?
Replies
1
Views
856
A Decoupling of a spring mass system
Replies
5
Views
1K
Sinking Object Motion Equations
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Motor driven pendulum - How to track its position?
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Kinetic Energy derivation assumption?
Replies
11
Views
2K
I Transmission of torque using friction
Replies
32
Views
3K
A Question on Zeno time derivation
Replies
4
Views
1K
Kinematics and displacement, who is right?
Replies
19
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top