Weird algebra and logic in a mechanics cart quesiton

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a mechanics problem involving algebra and logic, particularly focusing on the derivation and application of equations related to forces and motion. Participants express confusion regarding the origins and validity of certain equations presented in the problem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question the logic behind the equations and their derivation, with some expressing difficulty in understanding the assumptions made, particularly regarding the neglect of drag forces. Others discuss the implications of approximations in physics and the criteria for their validity.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants seeking clarification on specific steps and equations. Some have provided insights into the nature of approximations in physics, while others are still grappling with the underlying logic and assumptions. There is no clear consensus, but several productive lines of inquiry are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem includes a segment labeled 'useful information,' which may be critical to understanding the context of the equations. There is also mention of the challenge posed by homework constraints and the expectations for demonstrating the validity of approximations.

aspodkfpo
Messages
148
Reaction score
5
Homework Statement
Q 12 C)
Page 13

https://www.asi.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/NQE_2009_Physics_solutions.pdf
Relevant Equations
−Fd = ma3
vb = le^-k/m*0
v = vb e^-kx/m
Logic and equations seem to have come out of nowhere in this question. I have been unable to understand where these equations come from and why they are used.

Can someone describe the logic for the steps in the question?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
aspodkfpo said:
Relevant Equations:: −Fd = ma3
If the link is not permanent, this thread becomes worthless at some point.

Even then, please learn to properly render and explain all variables used
Rendering: use buttons for subscript and superscript, or better: learn a litttle ##\LaTeX##
(There's a good tutorial on LaTeX here.)

The equation reads $$-F_d = ma_3$$
and further up in this puzzle you dump on us it says ##F_d = \kappa v^2## with ##\kappa = 0.030 ## kg m -1
What exactly, is unclear ?
aspodkfpo said:
Logic and equations seem to have come out of nowhere in this question
They claim it comes from the 'useful information'. Did you miss that ?
 
You ask about 12 (c) ; does that mean you did and understood 12 (b) completely ?

I must admit that I find 12 (b) rather demanding: they intended you to ignore the drag, solely because at ##\approx##0.2 m/s2 it is much smaller than ##g\sin\theta## at 4.9 m/s2 .

(plus a cryptic chunk of 'useful information'
In physics it is often useful to make approximations. This can simplify your calculations, and if the approximation you make is appropriate, it won’t change your result appreciably. For example, if you know that A = B + C and that C is much, much smaller than B, you may be able to say that A = B and get the same result as you would have using A = B + C. If you make an approximation you must demonstrate that it is valid.​
but who is to say 4% is acceptable ?)

I know it's the science olympics, but asking this kind of judgment is unscientific to me.

I assume the 'useful information' is provided together with the exercise, not only with the solutions ?

In that case, what part of the logic escapes you ?

##\ ##
 
BvU said:
You ask about 12 (c) ; does that mean you did and understood 12 (b) completely ?

I must admit that I find 12 (b) rather demanding: they intended you to ignore the drag, solely because at ##\approx##0.2 m/s2 it is much smaller than ##g\sin\theta## at 4.9 m/s2 .

(plus a cryptic chunk of 'useful information'
In physics it is often useful to make approximations. This can simplify your calculations, and if the approximation you make is appropriate, it won’t change your result appreciably. For example, if you know that A = B + C and that C is much, much smaller than B, you may be able to say that A = B and get the same result as you would have using A = B + C. If you make an approximation you must demonstrate that it is valid.​
but who is to say 4% is acceptable ?)

I know it's the science olympics, but asking this kind of judgment is unscientific to me.

I assume the 'useful information' is provided together with the exercise, not only with the solutions ?

In that case, what part of the logic escapes you ?

##\ ##
12b) was fine, I could do it, was not sure about the -k/m x becoming - k/m 0 or how they get the equations for the first few lines. Will look at it again.

How would I observe latex code in non-linear form when typing? i.e. \ frac a b isn't in text.
 
aspodkfpo said:
How would I observe latex code in non-linear form when typing? i.e. \ frac a b isn't in text.
Use the preview button.
 
haruspex said:
Use the preview button.
aspodkfpo said:
12b) was fine, I could do it, was not sure about the -k/m x becoming - k/m 0 or how they get the equations for the first few lines. Will look at it again.

How would I observe latex code in non-linear form when typing? i.e. \ frac a b isn't in text.

## \frac {-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 -4ac}} {2a} ##

- why does this not work?
 
enclose in ## ... ## for inline math, in $$... $$ for displayed math
 
aspodkfpo said:
\frac {-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 -4ac}} {2a}

- why does this not work?
Because you did not wrap it up in either a pair and of double hashes (# #...# #, but without the spaces) or a pair of double dollar signs:
##\frac {-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 -4ac}} {2a}##
$$\frac {-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 -4ac}} {2a}$$
 

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K