No reply for 35 minutes, then three replies all at once. The workings of this forum.
Well short of the record.
Having looked at the question again, I think that they've used the term "force of magnitude F" erroneously, and it should just be "force of F Newtons"
My thinking is that magnitude of impulse is then just the straight integration from start of end; then take the modulus.
So, I still go with 0 as the answer.
If we're going to mean the area between the curve and the axis as always being positive regardless of whether it's above or below the axis, then we also need to revisit part a, where F is initially going negative.
I'll admit to not being well versed in this area, but I think I can see where you're coming from and I do agree with you. Afterall, we say the magnitude of the displacement is 0 even though it has a non-zero distance.
I'll defer to your expertise here and delete my post.
I'll admit to not being well versed in this area, but I think I can see where you're coming from and I do agree with you. Afterall, we say the magnitude of the displacement is 0 even though it has a non-zero distance.
Displacement is a vector quantity, as is impulse.
The only issue with the question that I see is the use of the word magnitude when refering to the force. Which would imply the use of ∫∣F(t)∣dt, rather than ∫F(x)dt, and I think that's just an error in the wording of the question.
I'll defer to your expertise here and delete my post.
I claim no great expertise, and your post is fine, IMO.
Edit: Posts #2 and #4 together now look rather odd - verging on an infinite loop Edit2: It's changed again!
Having looked at the question again, I think that they've used the term "force of magnitude F" erroneously, and it should just be "force of F Newtons"
My thinking is that magnitude of impulse is then just the straight integration from start of end; then take the modulus.
So, I still go with 0 as the answer.
If we're going to mean the area between the curve and the axis as always being positive regardless of whether it's above or below the axis, then we also need to revisit part a, where F is initially going negative.
That's gone over my head for the moment but I will try to understand it in due course.
The only issue with the question that I see is the use of the word magnitude when refering to the force. Which would imply the use of ∫∣F(t)∣dt, rather than ∫F(x)dt, and I think that's just an error in the wording of the question.
I claim no great expertise, and your post is fine, IMO.
Edit: Posts #2 and #4 together now look rather odd - verging on an infinite loop
Okay - so, to clear this up (for myself and the OP):
It's normally magnitude of an impulse is given by ∫t1t2Fdt where F is the force.
However, if you're only given F as being the magnitude of the force, then your impulse is ∫t1t2∣F∣dt
Okay - so, to clear this up (for myself and the OP):
It's normally magnitude of an impulse is given ∫t1t2Fdt where F is the force.
However, if you're only given F as being the magnitude of the force, then your impulse is ∫t1t2∣F∣dt
Is that it?
IMO.
Caveat: The first form gives the impulse. If you want its magnitude, drop any sign after integrating.
The second form is something I've never seen nor would I expect to, but is my attempt to interpret the "magnitude of force" statement, which I think is erroneously in the question.
Caveat: The first form gives the impulse. If you want its magnitude, drop the sign after integrating.
The second form is something I've never seen nor would I expect to, but is my attempt to interpret the "magnitude of force" statement, which I think is erroneously in the question.
Fair enough - we can chalk this down to improper textbook wording then.
(I'm going to edit in the modulus signs into my post)