Velocity, position, acceleration graph help

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a physics student struggling with a velocity/time graph problem, specifically calculating the distance traveled from t=0 to t=0.4 seconds. The key point is that the area under the velocity/time graph represents the distance, and users suggest breaking the area into manageable shapes for calculation. The student encounters difficulty due to the graph's curvature, prompting questions about finding the area of irregular shapes. For determining the object's position at t=0.4 seconds, it's noted that the initial position is necessary alongside the distance traveled. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of understanding graph interpretation and the relationship between distance, velocity, and position.
Physicshelpneeded
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
im new to this site...so i don't kno whow this works...ANYWAYS...

so you guys know : I am 16, taking a college course at mt sac (physics 1)...and I am kind of struggling because my math isn't as high as it nees to be for the coruse and because i don't understand soem concepts.

im having trouble with a velocity/time graph problem... the question asks me to determine the distance moved by the object in the time interval from t=0 to t=0.4 (since u guys can't see the graph, i will tell u...the velocity moves from 3.4 to 3.9 in 4 seconds) anyone know how to do this?

the second part to this problem is What additional information do you need to determine the position of the object at t=0.4 s? explain.

CAN ANYONE HELP ME WITH THIS? Thanks guys! (and if you are a girl, girls) :wink:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are two ways of doing this but you want to do it the graph way. The most important thing to remember is that the area under a velocity/time graph is equal to the distance travelled. So isolate the area under the graph from said interval and divide it up into simple shapes - squares/triangles. It's just very easy geometry from there.

For the second half I'm not sure what they mean by that.
 
Last edited:
thanks for the advice! :) it helped a littel bit...but the problem i have is that the graph is curved...and makes a triangle and an almost-full rectangle...but not an actual one...so how would i find the area of the weird shape? is there a secret way or formula? :confused:

and can anyon eelse help me with part 2? :confused:


thanx :smile:
 
I think Mr peanut already said this , if you must do it graphically ( and the shape is not a rectangle - then you divide the shape into small but measureable sections. Typically use a given small section of time say 0.1 seconds and divide the x-axis ( time ) into a number of the sections.In each section measure the y value ( velocity) -- the strip area is thus v*dt . Add up all the sections to get the total area the result is the distance.The accuracy is dependant on the size of dt chosen.
Do you have a typo in the question you said the velocity changes from 3.4 to 3.9 in '4' seconds . did you mean 0.4.
 
yes, i meant 0.4...thanx for ur help...does anyone else know anything about this particular question?


and can ANYONE answer part 2? :confused: :frown:
 
Part 2:
Assuming you know the distance traveled in the time interval, you'll also need the initial position in order to determine the final position
(I assumed that during the time interval the particle moved in a straight line from the initial position)
 
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...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top