Distance traveled with linearly increasing kinetic energy

In summary: It's for time, I was told that the integration bounds shouldn't rely on the variable being integrated which is why I used x.The symbol you are using is known as the "integral" symbol.This is not correct. One side will end up as an integral in ##x## or another dummy variable, and one side an integral in ##t##.Please, please, please avoid using the symbol...It's for time, I was told that the integration bounds shouldn't rely on the variable being integrated which is why I used x.
  • #1
FutureOption
8
1

Homework Statement


An object of mass 50 kg gains 20,000,000 joules every second. Devise formulae to find the distance covered at any given point in time, and the time necessary to cover a certain distance.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


E = 20,000,000 * t
V = (E * 2/50)1/2
That's all I could come up with, couldn't get any further.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
FutureOption said:

Homework Statement


An object of mass 50 kg gains 20,000,000 joules every second. Devise formulae to find the distance covered at any given point in time, and the time necessary to cover a certain distance.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


E = 20,000,000 * t
V = (E * 2/50)1/2
That's all I could come up with, couldn't get any further.

Have you tried using calculus? We know that:
[tex] v = \frac{ds}{dt} [/tex]

Assuming the motion is in a straight line, displacement would be a suitable variable for distance. You could then integrate that to find an expression for s(t).

Is the question looking for two equations, because it seems that s(t) would satisfy both components of the question?
 
  • #3
@FutureOption do you know any calculus?

As suggested above, you will need calculus to solve this.
 
  • #4
No, haven't learned calc yet. I'll try looking things up and giving it a shot, though.
 
  • #5
FutureOption said:
No, haven't learned calc yet. I'll try looking things up and giving it a shot, though.

It's definitely a post-calculus problem.

PS I would solve the problem for mass ##m## (kg) and ##k## (J/s). Then plug in the specific numbers at the end. The calculus should be clearer with variables.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Alright, it's definitely inelegant but I think I have something.
(20,000,000 * 2/50)1/2 = 894.427191

##\int_0^ x 894.427191 \cdot \sqrt{t} \, dt##

I believe that should give me the distance covered in a certain amount of time, am I on the right track?
 
  • #7
FutureOption said:
Alright, it's definitely inelegant but I think I have something.
(20,000,000 * 2/50)1/2 = 894.427191

##\int_0^ x 894.427191 \cdot \sqrt{t} \, dt##

I believe that should give me the distance covered in a certain amount of time, am I on the right track?
Your limits should be 0 to t, not x. The reason is that we are integrating with respect to time (I am assuming the x was for distance/ displacement- if it was for time, then you are correct). We are looking for how much distance has been covered between the lower limit and the upper time limit, hence the start time (t=0) to a general time (t=t). Other than that, that would lead to the correct solution.

Sorry if I rambled on a bit, but given that you said that you were unfamiliar with calculus, I just wanted to try and explain the rationale behind the working. I hope that will help. Please do ask if it doesn't make sense.
 
  • #8
It's for time, I was told that the integration bounds shouldn't rely on the variable being integrated which is why I used x.
 
  • #9
FutureOption said:
Alright, it's definitely inelegant but I think I have something.
(20,000,000 * 2/50)1/2 = 894.427191

##\int_0^ x 894.427191 \cdot \sqrt{t} \, dt##

I believe that should give me the distance covered in a certain amount of time, am I on the right track?
See my comment above about using variables.

You still have some work to do in any case.

That is not an equation. You need an integral equation.
 
  • #10
FutureOption said:
It's for time, I was told that the integration bounds shouldn't rely on the variable being integrated which is why I used x.
That is fair enough. It just prevents any careless errors by setting equal to x, rather than t. Both are perfectly acceptable though.
 
  • #11
Master1022 said:
Your limits should be 0 to t, not x. The reason is that we are integrating with respect to time (I am assuming the x was for distance/ displacement- if it was for time, then you are correct). We are looking for how much distance has been covered between the lower limit and the upper time limit, hence the start time (t=0) to a general time (t=t). Other than that, that would lead to the correct solution.

Sorry if I rambled on a bit, but given that you said that you were unfamiliar with calculus, I just wanted to try and explain the rationale behind the working. I hope that will help. Please do ask if it doesn't make sense.

This is not correct. One side will end up as an integral in ##x## or another dummy variable, and one side an integral in ##t##.
 
  • #12
PeroK said:
This is not correct. One side will end up as an integral in ##x## or another dummy variable, and one side an integral in ##t##.
What was incorrect about it?

I do not mean this in a rude way, just out of curiosity.
 
  • #13
FutureOption said:
Alright, it's definitely inelegant but I think I have something.
(20,000,000 * 2/50)1/2 = 894.427191

##\int_0^ x 894.427191 \cdot \sqrt{t} \, dt##

I believe that should give me the distance covered in a certain amount of time, am I on the right track?

Please, please, please avoid using the symbol ##x## to stand for a time in a problem involving both time and distance; use some other t-related symbol, such as ##T## or ##t_1## of ##\tau## as your upper limit in the integration. Better still, use ##t## as the upper limit and use some other symbol for the "dummy" variable of integration, such as ##t'## or ##s## or ##\tau## (my favorite). Also, you can save space make things more clear by using a symbol such as ##c## instead of ##894.427191##. Carry out the calculation all the way to the very end, and only then plug in the numerical value of ##c##. So, if I were doing it I would write the distance ##x## at time ##t## as
$$x = \int_0^t c \sqrt{\tau} \, d\tau,$$
where ##c = 894.427191.##

Note: if you really DID mean to use distance ##x## as your upper integration limit, that would be 100% wrong.
 
  • Like
Likes Master1022
  • #14
I appreciate the advice. I ended up interpreting PeroK's post as the opposite of what he meant which is why I used the numeric value.
 
  • #15
Master1022 said:
What was incorrect about it?

I do not mean this in a rude way, just out of curiosity.
There should be an integral equation somewhere. Not simply an integral in ##t##.
 
  • #16
PeroK said:
There should be an integral equation somewhere. Not simply an integral in ##t##.
Of course, but I assumed that they had simplified the integral
[tex] \int_{0}^{s} ds [/tex] to s and he was only posting about the RHS of the eqn
 
  • #17
So is it supposed to look something like this?
##s(t)=\int_0^t c * \sqrt{T} \, dT##

And about the second part of the question, presumably I need another equation for that. How do I go about getting it?
 
  • #18
FutureOption said:
So is it supposed to look something like this?
##s(t)=\int_0^t c * \sqrt{T} \, dT##

And about the second part of the question, presumably I need another equation for that. How do I go about getting it?

Yes. Now you have to integrate.
 
  • #19
##s(t)=c*\frac {t^{3/2}} {3/2}##
I believe that's it.
 
  • #20
Alright, looks like that is indeed the answer. Getting the second equation from there is pretty easy. Thanks, guys.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK

Related to Distance traveled with linearly increasing kinetic energy

1. What is linearly increasing kinetic energy?

Linearly increasing kinetic energy refers to the rate at which an object's kinetic energy is increasing over a specific distance, where the increase is proportional to the distance traveled.

2. How is distance traveled related to linearly increasing kinetic energy?

In linearly increasing kinetic energy, the distance traveled is directly proportional to the increase in kinetic energy. This means that as the distance increases, the kinetic energy also increases at the same rate.

3. What factors can affect the distance traveled with linearly increasing kinetic energy?

The distance traveled with linearly increasing kinetic energy can be affected by the mass of the object, the initial velocity, and the surface or medium through which the object is traveling.

4. How is linearly increasing kinetic energy different from constant kinetic energy?

Linearly increasing kinetic energy refers to a constantly increasing rate of energy, while constant kinetic energy refers to a consistent amount of energy over a specific distance. In other words, linearly increasing kinetic energy is a change in the rate of energy, while constant kinetic energy is a steady state of energy.

5. Is linearly increasing kinetic energy always present in motion?

No, linearly increasing kinetic energy is not always present in motion. It depends on the specific factors involved in the motion, such as the initial conditions and external forces acting on the object. In some cases, the kinetic energy may remain constant or even decrease over a specific distance.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
488
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
33
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
804
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
966
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
702
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
22
Views
3K
Back
Top