Understanding Kinematics: Uniformly Accelerated Motion Equation Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter LuGoBi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kinematics
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the equations governing uniformly accelerated motion, emphasizing the distinction between uniform velocity and changing velocity. It highlights that while the equation S = So + Vot + at^2 appears to relate time and distance, it is incorrect because it uses final velocity instead of average velocity. The correct approach involves substituting the average speed into the distance equation, leading to the accurate formula S = So + Vot + at^2/2. The conversation concludes that the fundamental misunderstanding arises from applying the final velocity in a context where velocity is not constant. Understanding this distinction is crucial for correctly solving problems related to uniformly accelerated motion.
LuGoBi
Well, I think this one is pretty simple, but still, I don't know how to solve it.

We all know that for uniform velocity in a straight line the following equation sets the relationship between time and distance traveled: S = So + Vt (Eq. 1)

When it comes to uniformly accelerated motion, the only difference is that the velocity is changing constantly, according to the following equation: V = Vo + at (Eq. 2)

Now, if you insert Eq. 2 in Eq. 1 you get: S = So + Vot + at^2 (Eq. 3)

But we all know the correct equation is S = So + Vot + at^2/2! Besides, the second derivative of Eq. 3 is 2a, when the correct one is, by definition, a, obviously. So it's clearly wrong. What's the deal with this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In Eq. 2, V stands for the final speed after some time. To use it in Eq. 1, you'd have to replace V by the average speed, since that equation only applies for constant speed (or average speed). Since the acceleration is uniform, the average speed is just (Vo + Vf)/2 = (Vo + Vo + at)/2 = Vo + at/2. Plug that into Eq. 1 and see what happens.
 
Damn it, that's beautiful. Thank you very much.
 
The reason for the wrong answer is that ;
v = u + at is equation to find final velocity in constant acceleration, and you are putting this final velocity in 2nd equation (BUT VELOCITY IS CHANGING AT EVERY POINT)

SO,YOUR EQUATION MODIFIES AS:-

S = So + v1t1 + v2t2 + ...(where t1 + t2 +...= t)

so,in general,u MUST USE,

dS = v.dt
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top