1

Suppose I throw a ball up in the air (with air friction $b>0$) at time $t=0$ and it lands at time $T_1$. So we have the equation:

$$m\frac{\mathrm{d}v}{\mathrm{d}t} = -bv + mg$$

And suppose I throw a ball up in a vacuum (with the same initial velocity) at time $t=0$ and it lands at time $T_2$. So we have the equation:

$$m\frac{\mathrm{d}v}{\mathrm{d}t} = mg$$

Is $T_1<T_2$?

Priyatham
  • 2,607
  • Try http://physics.stackexchange.com/ – copper.hat Mar 11 '14 at 19:28
  • 1
    We wouldn't take this question in its current form on [physics.SE] though. Craig, if you want to ask this there, make sure to show what research you've done to try to figure this out yourself, and identify the specific concept that you're stuck on. – David Z Mar 11 '14 at 19:37
  • 3
    It's really a mathematics question. I gave the equations. – Craig Feinstein Mar 11 '14 at 20:14

2 Answers2

2

I remember the answer to this because I was a bit surprised when I first did it.

You'll find that the time spent in the air is less than if it were in a vacuum. Let $v_0$ be the initial velocity and $-v_1$ be the final. You can show without so much work that the time taken for a ball to travel up and back down in a vacuum is given by $$\tau=\frac{2v_0}{g}.$$ When the ball travels up, we have $-mg-bv=F$ and we get $$\int^{t_1}_0dt=-\int^0_{v_0}\frac{v}{g+\frac{b}{m}v}dv=\frac{m}{b}\int^{v_0}_0\left(1-\frac{g}{1+\frac{b}{m}v}\right)dv,$$ which means $$t_1=\frac{m}{b}\log\left(1+\frac{bv_0}{mg}\right).$$ It's the same for travelling back down again, and the time $t_2$ required to do this is $$t_2=-\frac{m}{b}\log\left(1-\frac{bv_1}{mg}\right).$$ You get $$t_1+t_2=\frac{m}{b}\log\left(\frac{mg+bv_0}{mg-bv_1}\right)=\frac{v_0+v_1}{g}.$$ Since $v_1$ must be less than $v_0$ you find that $t_1+t_2<\tau$ which means that the answer to your question is yes.

As commented above however, often you have an equation dependent on $v^2.$ In this case, you would find the speed to be given by a formula like $$v(t)=\sqrt{\frac{mg}{b}}\frac{c_1e^{2\sqrt{\frac{bg}{m}t}}-1}{c_1e^{2\sqrt{\frac{bg}{m}t}}+1}=\sqrt{\frac{mg}{b}}\tanh\left(\sqrt{\frac{bg}{m}}t+c_2\right),$$ as opposed to forces of the form $F_0-bv,$ which give formulae like $$v(t)=v_0e^{-\frac{b}{m}t}+\frac{F_0}{b}\left(1-e^{-\frac{b}{m}t}\right).$$

Hobbyist
  • 1,483
  • On a related note, something you might find interesting is that if you were to throw your ball at an angle with a drag force like you mentioned above (ie. of the form $-bv$), and its horizontal distance travelled is $x$ and vertical $y,$ to maximise $x$ when $y$ is at its peak you would throw it at an angle $$\frac{\sqrt{5}-1}{2}=\frac{1}{\varphi}.$$ – Hobbyist Mar 15 '14 at 06:31
  • I realise that it is true, but you haven't shown that $|v_1| < |v_0|$. – copper.hat Mar 15 '14 at 07:07
  • I didn't know if I should have or not. On the one hand, mathematicians are the main people here, so they'll want everything to be a bit more thorough. On the other, I don't like spoon-feeding answers and I thought that it would be clear to OP if OP had studied physics, so I wouldn't want to patronise by showing too much. I'll definitely add it if it's not clear to OP though. – Hobbyist Mar 15 '14 at 07:14
  • I don't follow the part where you say, "When the ball travels up, we have..." – Craig Feinstein Mar 18 '14 at 17:01
  • I was unable to show $|v_1|<v_0$ without showing $T_1<T_2$ first :-(. – copper.hat Mar 19 '14 at 07:15
1

With height as positive in the upward direction, the ODE becomes $\dot{v} = f(v,b) = -{b \over m} v -g$.

Let $t \mapsto v(t,b)$ denote the solution to the ODE for a given $b \ge 0$, and let $t \mapsto x(t,b)$ represent the corresponding height obtained by integrating $v$. Note that the solutions are $C^1$. It is straightforward to write down an explicit solution for both $b=0$ and $b>0$.

The initial conditions are $v(0,b) = v_0 >0$ and $x(0,b) = 0$. We have $v(t,0) = v_0 -gt$, and for $b>0$, $v(t,b) = e^{-{b \over m} t}(v_0 +{mg \over b}) - {mg \over b}$. Integrating gives $x(t,0) = v_0t-{1\over 2} g t^2$, and for $b>0$, $x(t,b) = {m \over b} \left( (1-e^{-{b \over m} t})(v_0 +{mg \over b}) - gt \right)$.

It is straightforward to see that the height is strictly increasing up to some maximum height, and then strictly decreasing after that. In particular, there exist a unique zero crossing for some $t>0$, and that the velocity is strictly negative at this time. Let $T(b)>0$ denote the unique crossing time.

Direct computation gives $T(0) = {2 v_0 \over g}$. We would like to show that $T(b) < T(0)$ for $b >0$.

Suppose $b>0$, then $x(T(b),b) = 0$ gives $ (1-e^{-{b \over m} T(b)})(v_0 +{mg \over b}) = g T(b)$ (with $T(b)>0$, of course). We can rewrite this as $ { v_0 b \over mg } + 1 = { {b \over m} T(b) \over 1-e^{-{b \over m} T(b)} }$.

We will establish the estimate ${x \over 1 - e^{-x}} > 1+{x \over 2}$ holds for $x > 0$. First note that this gives $ { v_0 b \over mg } + 1 > 1+{1 \over 2}{b \over m} T(b)$, from which we obtain $T(b) < {2 v_0 \over g} = T(0)$.

The estimate can be rearranged to ${x-2 \over x+2} > - e^{-x}$, which is clearly true for $x \ge 2$. Now suppose $0<x<2$ and rewrite the inequality as ${2+x \over 2-x} > e^x$. The Taylor series of the left hand side is $-1+\sum_{k=0}^\infty 2 {x^k \over 2^k}$ and the right hand side is $\sum_{k=0}^\infty {x^k \over k!}$. The coefficients of the constant, $x$ and $x^2$ terms are equal, and the left hand coefficient of $x^k$ is ${2 \over 2^k}$ and the right hand coefficient is ${1 \over k!}$ for $k >2$, and since ${2 \over 2^k}>{1 \over k!}$ we see that the inequality holds for $0<x<2$.

copper.hat
  • 172,524
  • @23rd: Thanks for catching, I have an irreparable sign error which invalidates my answer. – copper.hat Mar 18 '14 at 22:39
  • Revamped answer. – copper.hat Mar 19 '14 at 06:49
  • Good job @copper.hat. I actually had thought the answer would be dependent on $m,g$, and $b$. – Craig Feinstein Mar 19 '14 at 16:00
  • @CraigFeinstein: Well, it is dependent on $m,g$, but here we are comparing the results of $b=0$ with $b>0$ for the same $m,g$. What I mean is that we should write $v(t,b,m,g)$, etc, but that would add a lot of clutter. And we are only interested in whether $T(b,m,g,...) < T(0,m,g,...)$. I had hoped to prove that $T(b)$ (as above) is a strictly decreasing function of $b$ using the implicit function theorem, but got lost in estimates. The problem was trickier than I originally thought. – copper.hat Mar 19 '14 at 16:16
  • I meant that I had thought that whether $T_1<T_2$ depends on $b,m,g$. – Craig Feinstein Mar 19 '14 at 19:03
  • @CraigFeinstein: I haven't thought it through, but if you scale time, you can replace the $-{b \over m}$ by $-1$, and by scaling the velocity, you can replace the $-g $ by $-1$. This might be a good idea for a simpler solution... – copper.hat Mar 19 '14 at 19:09
  • I'm happy the solution was this easy. – Craig Feinstein Mar 19 '14 at 20:26