What makes dynamics more difficult?

  • Thread starter Thread starter koab1mjr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dynamics
AI Thread Summary
Dynamics is considered more challenging than statics primarily due to the complexity of analyzing moving systems and the need for free-body diagrams to visualize forces in motion. While the mathematical requirements are not extensive, a solid understanding of basic calculus and Newtonian mechanics is essential. The course introduces kinematics and dynamics, with dynamics incorporating forces into the analysis of motion, making it conceptually demanding. Students often find it difficult to grasp the mathematical models of dynamic systems compared to static ones. Overall, dynamics is a crucial subject that builds on the foundations laid in statics and is applicable throughout an engineering career.
koab1mjr
Messages
105
Reaction score
0
Hi

I am an ME student who finished up statics this past fall. I felt the course was not difficult at all, and had a lot of overlap with my calc physics courses. I have heard that dynamics is a significan step up in difficulty and I was wondering if someone could elaborate why in detail. Also what maths too brush up on prior to the course, I am assuming Diff EQ, up to laplace transforms maybe?


Thanks in advance.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
You really only need to be knowledgeable with differentials and matricies if I remember correctly. It isn't so much math intensive as it is conceptually difficult (IMO). Unlike statics, you start to look at things moving from different reference frames and that can get things a bit complicated. I remember the first time I was asked about the acceleration of the end of an arm, attached to a rotating plate attached to another arm on a moving robot.

There are also two basic divisions; kinematics and dynamics. Kinematics just deals with the motions involved in a system. Dynamics takes the motions and throws in the forces involved as well.

It was a tough class for me. I remember surviving it and thinking that robotics and such was not my cup of tea. Still, it was an interesting class that you will use for the rest of your career, just like statics.
 
In both classes you're essentially solving
<br /> f=ma<br />
In statics ma=0, and in dynamics, it doesn't. Simplicity aside though, as Fred mentioned, things get really tricky when stuff starts moving. For me, the crux of the classes developing free-body diagrams. You've already learned how important they are in statics, and in dynamics, they are just as crucial.

However, as said, when things start moving and rotating, forces and be difficult, keeping proper conventions, etc, etc.
 
koab1mjr said:
Hi

I am an ME student who finished up statics this past fall. I felt the course was not difficult at all, and had a lot of overlap with my calc physics courses. I have heard that dynamics is a significan step up in difficulty and I was wondering if someone could elaborate why in detail. Also what maths too brush up on prior to the course, I am assuming Diff EQ, up to laplace transforms maybe?


Thanks in advance.

of course dynamics is a bit more difficult than statics.. i jus finished my kinematics and dynamics course this year and `l say that it doesn't involve too much of mathematical concepts ( as long as u can perform basic arithmetic operations and a little calculus). the real challenge comes in drawing free body diagrams of the forces involved in it... coz the objects are moving , and u need some imagination to actually visualize the motion of the body before doing any calculation in it.dyanmics is interesting if you are strong in the basics of statics and Newtonian mechanics.all the best
 
koab1mjr said:
Hi

I am an ME student who finished up statics this past fall. I felt the course was not difficult at all, and had a lot of overlap with my calc physics courses. I have heard that dynamics is a significan step up in difficulty and I was wondering if someone could elaborate why in detail. Also what maths too brush up on prior to the course, I am assuming Diff EQ, up to laplace transforms maybe?


Thanks in advance.

I found it to be about the same overall. However, it depends on the individual and their ability to "see the concept" so to speak.

I found it more challenging in dynamics to get me head wrapped around the mathematical model of the physical system than I did in statics. Probably do to the system moving.

CS
 
I honestly find dynamics to be easier than statics. Although this probably isn't because of the difficulty of either topic, but more because dynamics isn't so mind numbingly boring.

As minger stated, all you need to know is f = ma (or as I prefer f = dp/dt). Other than that, things aren't that much different than statics except for maybe the centripetal/centrifugal stuff.
 
Thread 'Turbocharging carbureted petrol 2 stroke engines'
Hi everyone, online I ve seen some images about 2 stroke carbureted turbo (motorcycle derivation engine). Now.. In the past in this forum some members spoke about turbocharging 2 stroke but not in sufficient detail. The intake and the exhaust are open at the same time and there are no valves like a 4 stroke. But if you search online you can find carbureted 2stroke turbo sled or the Am6 turbo. The question is: Is really possible turbocharge a 2 stroke carburated(NOT EFI)petrol engine and...
I need some assistance with calculating hp requirements for moving a load. - The 4000lb load is resting on ball bearing rails so friction is effectively zero and will be covered by my added power contingencies. Load: 4000lbs Distance to travel: 10 meters. Time to Travel: 7.5 seconds Need to accelerate the load from a stop to a nominal speed then decelerate coming to a stop. My power delivery method will be a gearmotor driving a gear rack. - I suspect the pinion gear to be about 3-4in in...
Back
Top