MHB Why is the no v kinematic equation helpful for solving kinematics problems?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jsspoon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kinematic
AI Thread Summary
The no v kinematic equation, expressed as x = x₀ + v₀t + (1/2)at², is designed for scenarios where the final velocity is unknown. It is clarified that there is no specific requirement to evaluate the (1/2)at² term first; calculations can be performed in any order. The term "no v kinematic equation" refers to its use when the final velocity is not a factor in the problem. Understanding the four kinematic equations helps students identify which variable is missing and simplifies the algebra involved in solving kinematics problems. This approach allows for more straightforward problem-solving without needing to substitute between equations.
jsspoon
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
In the no v kinematic equation, $x={x}_{o}+{v}_{o}t+a{t}^{2}/2$, why do you have to solve $a{t}^{2}/2$ first before solving down completely?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hello and welcome to MHB! (Wave)

What do you mean by "solve $at^2/2$ first?"
 
Since t has the power of 2 for the acceleration, perhaps this is why the OP has stated "first" . . .?
Also, jsspoon, is there any specific question regarding the kinematic equation?
 
If by "solve" you simply mean "evaluate x for a given value of t", you do not need to evaluate [math]\frac{1}{2}at^2[/math]. You can do the calculations in any order. If you mean "solve for t for a given value of x", again there is nothing special about the [math]\frac{1}{2}at^2[/math] term- you can use the quadratic formula to solve.

And why was this called "no v kinematic equation"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HallsofIvy said:
If by "solve" you simply mean "evaluate x for a given value of t", you do not need to evaluate [math]\frac{1}{2}at^2[/math]. You can do the calculations in any order. If you mean "solve for t for a given value of x", again there is nothing special about the [math]\frac{1}{2}at^2[/math] term- you can use the quadratic formula to solve.

And why was this called "no v kinematic equation"?

The OP'er was one of my students, and we had labels for the four kinematic equations:
\begin{align*}
y&=y_0+v_{0y}t+a_y t^2/2 \qquad \text{no }v_y \\
\Delta y&=(v_y+v_{0y})t/2 \qquad \text{no }a_y \\
v_y&=v_{0y}+a_y t \qquad \text{no }y \\
v_y^2&=v_{0y}^2+2a_y \Delta y \qquad \text{no }t.
\end{align*}
Since, in kinematics, there are basically four players: $y, v_y, a_y, t$, there's one kinematic equation corresponding to which kinematic variable is missing. Knowing these four equations helps the students with the algebra, because they can just solve the one they need, and not necessarily have to plug one equation into another.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top