Trajectory of projectile with friction in air

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the trajectory of a projectile considering air friction. Participants explore the mathematical modeling of projectile motion in a fluid, specifically addressing the effects of air resistance on the motion equations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss various methods to model the projectile's motion, including the use of vector equations and the impact of air resistance as a function of velocity. Some question the assumptions regarding the nature of friction and its dependence on velocity.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing different perspectives on the equations governing projectile motion under air resistance. Some have offered insights into resolving forces in different directions, while others express uncertainty about their approaches and seek validation of their reasoning.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of differing assumptions about the nature of air resistance, with some participants suggesting it may be treated as a constant force, while others argue it should be proportional to velocity or its square. The complexity of 3D vector analysis versus simpler 2D approaches is also noted.

chaoseverlasting
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


This is not a homework prob, its just something I was trying out.

To find the equation of the path of the projectile when air friction is considered.


Homework Equations




F=-bv, where v is a vector.

The Attempt at a Solution


Let the projectile be launched with a velocity [tex]v=v_{0x}i+ v_{0y}j+v_{0z}k[/tex];

Velocity after a time t is: [tex]v(t)=\frac{mv_{0x}}{m+bt}i + \frac{(v_{0y}-gt)m}{m+bt}j + \frac{mv_{0z}}{m+bt}k[/tex]. Integration of this expression wrt t, would give you the path of the projectile... right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i don't know how you got your function but i know mass usually cancels out

if you treat friction as a constant force, independent of velocity and time, though I'm pretty friction force in a fluid is not independent of velocity, you just get the regular position function in each component with an acceleration because

[tex]a_x,z(t)=-k[/tex] and in the x direction you just get a bigger acceleration [tex]a_y(t)=-k+-g[/tex] k and g being both constants you would just get another constant acceleration, bigger.
 
Last edited:
I think at higher speeds it is proportional to the square of the speed.
 
andrevdh said:
I think at higher speeds it is proportional to the square of the speed.

im bad at this so i would like to test my grasp as well

[tex] <br /> a_x(t)=k(\frac{dx}{dt})^2[/tex]
[tex] \frac{d^2(x)}{dt^2}=k(\frac{dx}{dt})^2<br /> [/tex]

?? would this be the correct equation for acceleration for the x component?
i will try solving the DE if this is correct
 
Last edited:
Err... ok, I took friction to be -bv (vector), so the acceleration in the x and z directions worked out to be [tex]\frac{-b}{m}v_z[/tex]. Since the velocity would change with time as:

[tex]v_z=v_{0z}-\frac{b}{m}v_zt[/tex], this would give [tex]v_z[/tex] to be:

[tex]\frac{mv_{0z}}{m+bt}[/tex], where the mass does cancel out dimensionally. Integration of this expression gives a logarithmic function... so, is this right?
 
The air resistance, [tex]R[/tex], opposes the velocity of the projectile.

The angle of attack, [tex]\theta[/tex], of the projectile changes in its trajectory.

By resolving in the x - and y directions we get that

[tex]m\ddot{x} = - R \cos(\theta)[/tex]

and

[tex]m\ddot{y} = - R \sin(\theta) - mg[/tex]

we can rewrite the sine and cosine terms as

[tex]\cos(\theta) = \frac{\dot{x}}{v}[/tex]

and

[tex]\sin(\theta) = \frac{\dot{y}}{v}[/tex]

leading to

[tex]\ddot{x} = -a\dot{x}v}[/tex]

and

[tex]\ddot{y} = -a\dot{y}v} - g[/tex]

An "easier" approach is to rather resolve along the tangential and normal directions to the trajectory - which leads to the equation of the hodograph.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that's exactly what I've done... just used pure vectors in 3D instead of resolving the force...
 
I've burned myself once before with this 3D vector stuff, so I would rather keep to what I know - resolving the force components and setting up the equations of motion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
4K