1

My brain hurts and I'd really appreciate some help with this formula. I am currently at 0m travelling 50m/s. I want to decelerate and come to a stop at 10m in exactly 0.5 seconds. What should be my acceleration to achieve this.

No mechanics formula I know of lets me specify a start speed, end speed, distance, and time and gives me an acceleration. Any help is appreciated.

Simon
  • 11
  • 1
    The issue is that, in general, a given initial speed+position and final speed+position are compatible with only one constant acceleration, and therefore with only one time interval. Unfortunately, that time interval isn't the one specified in the problem. So your acceleration cannot be constant... – Semiclassical Sep 22 '14 at 15:34
  • No wonder I couldn't figure it out. I'm going with a previous idea that was posted here in the comments and allowing the time to also be variable. Thanks all. – Simon Sep 22 '14 at 15:39

3 Answers3

2

You know that $$x=x_0+v_0t+\frac{1}{2}at^2$$ $$v=v_0+at$$

with $\,x_0=0,\,v_0=50,\,x=100,v=0\,t=0.5$.

So, $$0=50+0.5a\Rightarrow a=-100\,[\text{m/s}^2]$$

But $$0+50\cdot0.5-\frac{1}{2}(-100)0.5^2=12.5\,[\text{m}]$$

And that's not even near of what you want.


So, I'm inclined to use a piecewise acceleration function (accelerate with $a_1$ until you hit $X$ meters, and then deccelerate with $a_2$ to exactly stop at the 100m mark).

cjferes
  • 2,216
1

Since other users showed that it can't be constant. Let's check the next simplest type: linear.

So assume

$$a(t) = mt+b$$

We know that $$v(t)-v(0)=\int_0^ta(t)\,\mathrm dt$$ and $$x(t)-x(0)=\int_0^t v(t)\,\mathrm dt$$

Starting with the first equation, we know that

$$0-50=\left[\frac{1}{2}mt^2+bt\right]_0^{0.5}$$

which simplifies to $$\frac{m}{8}+\frac{b}{2}=-50$$

Next we know that

$$v(t)=v(0)+\int_0^ta(t)\,\mathrm dt=v(0)+\left[\frac{1}{2}mt^2+bt\right]_0^t=50+\frac{1}{2}mt^2+bt$$

$$x(0.5)-x(0)=100=\int_0^{0.5}50+\frac{1}{2}mt^2+bt\,\mathrm dt$$

which simplifies to $$\frac{m}{48}+\frac{b}{8}=75$$

The intersection of these lines is at $m=-8400,b=2000$

So $$\boxed{a(t)=\left(-8400\frac{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{s}^3}\right)t+2000\frac{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{s}^2}}$$


Let's check our math.

Assume $a(t)=-8400t+2000$.

$$v(t)=\int_0^ta(t)\,\mathrm dt=\int_0^t-8400t+2000\,\mathrm dt=-4200t^2+2000t+c$$

Well $v(0)=50$ so $c=50$

$$v(t)=-4200t^2+2000t+50$$

We also know that $v(0.5)=0$

$$0=v(0.5)=-4200(0.5)^2+2000(0.5)+50=-1050+1000+50=0$$

Good.

Now $$x(t)=\int_0^tv(t)\,\mathrm dt=\int_0^t-4200t^2+2000t+50\,\mathrm dt=-1400t^3+1000t^2+50t+c$$

Again, we know $x(0)=0$ so $c=0$

$$x(t) = -1400t^3+1000t^2+50t$$

Last check: $$x(0.5)=100=-1400(0.5)^3+1000(0.5)^2+50(0.5)=-175+250+25=100$$

Check!

We're correct, now!


Since you just changed the problem, the new equation you get using this method is

$$a(t)=240t-160$$

BeaumontTaz
  • 2,795
1

If you don't decelerate at all, you will only cover $25$m in the half second, so you need to accelerate to cover the distance in that time. One approach would be to accelerate constantly for the half second, reach the $100$m point, and stop instantaneously. That gives $100=50 \cdot 0.5 + \frac 12 a (0.5)^2, a=8\cdot 75=600$m/s$^2$, or over $60 g$!?!?

Ross Millikan
  • 374,822
  • I don't think "stop instantaneously" is within the spirit of the problem. However, you bring up a good point that you won't make it unless you accelerate some first. Which explains the positive constant on the equation I got. Cool! – BeaumontTaz Sep 22 '14 at 16:22
  • I was just making numbers up to demonstrate the problem. For the sake of argument I'll change it to 10m so you would be decelerating immediately. At the moment I've allowed time to be variable and have solved it that way. – Simon Sep 22 '14 at 16:27
  • 1
    @BeaumontTaz: I could increase the acceleration and then decelerate very quickly (but not instantaneously) and get there as well. That produces a 1D continuum of solutions. I thought this was useful to show that you had to accelerate and decelerate very quickly to meet the stated distance. Simon's comment seems to support that it was useful. – Ross Millikan Sep 22 '14 at 16:30
  • @Simon: I think you want an intermediate distance. If you decelerate at $100$m/s so you reach zero velocity at the end of $\frac 12$ s, you cover $12.5$m. You probably want a distance between $12.5$ and $25$, where you can coast for a while, then decelerate, and hit the end at zero velocity. – Ross Millikan Sep 22 '14 at 16:33
  • @RossMillikan, fair enough. I had actually also worked out the piece-wise version (that you just mentioned) already and didn't make the connection between what you described and that. – BeaumontTaz Sep 22 '14 at 16:34
  • 1
    @RossMillikan I needed the distance to be constant but found I could be more flexible with time, hence allowing time to be variable. Thanks all. – Simon Sep 22 '14 at 16:36