# differential equations helpWatch

#1
Hi

Solve dv/dt = g - (kv^2)/m

i tried taking the (kv^2/m) term to the otherside so i could use the integrating factor but then i realised the v was squared and then questioned whether i could do this or not.

any help appreciated, thanks.
0
8 years ago
#2
Since you've got no t term, use separation of variable...
0
#3
(Original post by Vazzyb)
Since you've got no t term, use separation of variable...
how are the variables separable?
0
8 years ago
#4
by solve you mean get v in terms of t

dv/dt = g - (kv^2)/m

then

integral of 1/(g - (k/m)v^2) dv = integral of 1 dt + C

Then you can use partial fractions to integrate
0
#5
(Original post by Vazzyb)
by solve you mean get v in terms of t

dv/dt = g - (kv^2)/m

then

integral of 1/(g - (k/m)v^2) dv = integral of 1 dt + C

Then you can use partial fractions to integrate
sorry i'm not sure you can do that, perhaps i've not wrote it out correctly.

0
8 years ago
#6
why can you not do that lol
if you have

dy/dx = 3y^2, you can turn that to 1/(3y^2) dy = 1 dx + C

dy/dx = 9.8 + 3y^2, you can still turn that into 1/(9.8 + 3y^2) = 1 dx + C

when you've got

dy/dx = y + e^x for example, there's no way you can separate completely y and x

I dunno i may be wrong, may be someone else should help
0
8 years ago
#7
sorry i'm not sure you can do that, perhaps i've not wrote it out correctly.

As Vazzyb says, rearranging to is a way.
0
8 years ago
#8
(Original post by Vazzyb)
by solve you mean get v in terms of t

dv/dt = g - (kv^2)/m

then

integral of 1/(g - (k/m)v^2) dv = integral of 1 dt + C

Then you can use partial fractions to integrate
partial fractions will not work here. A hyperbolic substitution will work. You can also do it via trig susbtitution.
0
8 years ago
#9
(Original post by Vazzyb)
why can you not do that lol
if you have

dy/dx = 3y^2, you can turn that to 1/(3y^2) dy = 1 dx + C

dy/dx = 9.8 + 3y^2, you can still turn that into 1/(9.8 + 3y^2) = 1 dx + C

when you've got

dy/dx = y + e^x for example, there's no way you can separate completely y and x

I dunno i may be wrong, may be someone else should help
yes for that you would need integrating factors.
0
#10
(Original post by ukdragon37)
As Vazzyb says, rearranging to is a way.
how would i go about integrating that?

is it possible to use partial fractions given that i don't know the values of m,g and k?
0
8 years ago
#11
how would i go about integrating that?

is it possible to use partial fractions given that i don't know the values of m,g and k?
Assume m, g and k are constants then you can integrate thus:

Let

Dunno whether they taught you the standard derivative of hyperbolic functions and their inverses....

It looks like terminal velocity you are doing, or I could be totally barking up the wrong tree?
0
8 years ago
#12
(Original post by anshul95)
yes for that you would need integrating factors.
0
8 years ago
#13
(Original post by anshul95)
partial fractions will not work here. A hyperbolic substitution will work. You can also do it via trig susbtitution.
Inverse tanh is faster, yes

But partial fractions would work...you'd just get two lns which would combine into one, and essentially, that's what Inv tanh is
0
8 years ago
#14
(Original post by anshul95)
partial fractions will not work here.
Why not? Of course it will!
0
8 years ago
#15
(Original post by ukdragon37)
Assume m, g and k are constants then you can integrate thus:

Let

Dunno whether they taught you the standard derivative of hyperbolic functions and their inverses....

It looks like terminal velocity you are doing, or I could be totally barking up the wrong tree?
that is terminal velocity stuff. This version assumes that the resistive force is proportional to the velocity squared.
0
8 years ago
#16
(Original post by Vazzyb)
Inverse tanh is faster, yes

But partial fractions would work...you'd just get two lns which would combine into one, and essentially, that's what Inv tanh is
ah yes you can-I missed that. It would be quite weird to do it that way. For the integrating factors I meant the example which you gave that wasn't separable.
0
8 years ago
#17
(Original post by anshul95)
ah yes you can-I missed that. It would be quite weird to do it that way. For the integrating factors I meant the example which you gave that wasn't separable.
ah right lol yeah
0
8 years ago
#18
(Original post by Vazzyb)
ah right lol yeah
just realised your name sounds like Jazzy B - if you know who he is
0
8 years ago
#19
(Original post by anshul95)
just realised your name sounds like Jazzy B - if you know who he is
lol i didn't, but i googled him
it seems his name was based on me
0
#20
(Original post by ukdragon37)
Assume m, g and k are constants then you can integrate thus:

Let

Dunno whether they taught you the standard derivative of hyperbolic functions and their inverses....

It looks like terminal velocity you are doing, or I could be totally barking up the wrong tree?
yeah, we have been taught the derivative of hyperbolic functions and their inverses. i just couldn't recognise it. cheers for the help! any chance of seeing how its done by partial fractions?

and yes, it is some terminal velocity stuff.
0
X

new posts
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### University open days

• Cranfield University
Cranfield Forensic MSc Programme Open Day Postgraduate
Thu, 25 Apr '19
• University of the Arts London
Open day: MA Footwear and MA Fashion Artefact Postgraduate
Thu, 25 Apr '19
• Cardiff Metropolitan University
Sat, 27 Apr '19

### Poll

Join the discussion

#### Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (264)
39.05%
No - but I will (46)
6.8%
No - I don't want to (51)
7.54%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (315)
46.6%