Physics Help Needed

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • xXHavokXx
    Section XIII.
    • Aug 2003
    • 860

    #1

    Physics Help Needed

    Its been a long while since I've done this stuff. I was tutoring a friend online and he gave me this problem and for the life of me I cant figure out how they got the answers. I get the physics I'm just not seeing the math, First I was thinking straight cross product but they didnt give
    v . I set it up as a series of matrices but you cant invert B, It's probably something simple.

    Anyone help?



  • tropical_fishy
    KART
    • Oct 2004
    • 1017

    #2
    did you try solving for Vx or Vy and then substituting?

    Comment

    • xXHavokXx
      Section XIII.
      • Aug 2003
      • 860

      #3
      Yes, but i have to pretend i dont know what Vx and Vy are, they are the answers. He wants to know how to do it if you dont have them

      Comment

      • tropical_fishy
        KART
        • Oct 2004
        • 1017

        #4
        I meant solving for the variable Vx, and taking the equation you end up with and plugging it in for Vx everywhere... you should end up with only Vy as a variable. then solve for Vy. Once you have Vy, plug that number back in and get Vx.

        Comment

        • ScatterPlot
          Not pop, it's all Coke
          • Jan 2002
          • 1960

          #5
          You should be able to split that up into 2 or more equations; the sum of the forces in the I direction on the left is equal to the sum of the forces in the I direction on the right, same with J and K. I -am- kinda confused as to why there is no K on the left side- maybe Ek (sum of K) on the left is zero and understood to be such? I dunno, haven't had too much physics yet and still get kinda confused with the cross product stuff.

          What do you do with the "e"? Can you distribute that or is it something special? If that wasn't there I could probly see if my way worked, but it's kinda messing me up. I take it that it's not the same natural log "e" right?
          AIM-bertmcmahan
          My email:[email protected]
          My feedback thread
          Good traders: richie,Roguefactor,moufo48,845,brtncstm160,vf-xx

          Mags don't shoot darts... they shoot nails.
          I used to be bertmcmahan, that I did.

          Comment

          • ScatterPlot
            Not pop, it's all Coke
            • Jan 2002
            • 1960

            #6
            Originally posted by tropical_fishy
            I meant solving for the variable Vx, and taking the equation you end up with and plugging it in for Vx everywhere... you should end up with only Vy as a variable. then solve for Vy. Once you have Vy, plug that number back in and get Vx.
            I'm pretty sure that will cancel out to 0=0 or something along those lines. It's a single equation with 2 variables, and you can't find the two with normal algebra. You gotta use the funny physics kind
            AIM-bertmcmahan
            My email:[email protected]
            My feedback thread
            Good traders: richie,Roguefactor,moufo48,845,brtncstm160,vf-xx

            Mags don't shoot darts... they shoot nails.
            I used to be bertmcmahan, that I did.

            Comment

            • bleachit
              Conturbo et Ledo
              • May 2003
              • 1410

              #7
              Originally posted by ScatterPlot
              You should be able to split that up into 2 or more equations; the sum of the forces in the I direction on the left is equal to the sum of the forces in the I direction on the right, same with J and K. I -am- kinda confused as to why there is no K on the left side- maybe Ek (sum of K) on the left is zero and understood to be such? I dunno, haven't had too much physics yet and still get kinda confused with the cross product stuff.

              What do you do with the "e"? Can you distribute that or is it something special? If that wasn't there I could probly see if my way worked, but it's kinda messing me up. I take it that it's not the same natural log "e" right?

              I think "e" is a constant.. so you may be able to find that in the text book.

              if K is not listed, then it is understood to be zero.
              "Great stories! See everyone, just buy a Sydarm and become a paintball superstar!! "
              AGD

              "i just sent out the full force of the canadian army (4 guys). expect high canadian casualties"
              Blackweenie

              Comment

              • deadeye9
                The other deadeye.
                • Jan 2003
                • 323

                #8
                "Equating corresponding components" should mean you equate
                i-hat coefficients from the LHS and RHS of the equation.
                Same for j-hat and k-hat.

                Comment

                • gimp
                  Registered User
                  • Jan 2001
                  • 2368

                  #9
                  the i components on the right should equal the i components on the left, same with the j components. You can ignore the k. so,

                  (4x10^-17) = 1.6x10^-19(.03Vy - 40)
                  Solve that for Vy and it comes out to 7000

                  You can do the same thing for the Vx component and it comes out to -3500.

                  *edit:

                  A good check is to plug the results into the K component,

                  If you do 1.6x10^-19(.02x-3500 + .01x7000) it comes out to be zero, which is consistent with the equation.

                  Comment

                  • xXHavokXx
                    Section XIII.
                    • Aug 2003
                    • 860

                    #10
                    yeah I went back to sleep woke up and figured it out


                    also the the lack of a scientific calculator mad alot of zeroes on paper.

                    Comment

                    • Maggot6
                      Registered User
                      • Aug 2004
                      • 1527

                      #11
                      I am a meer grade nine, And I have always thought physics would be a great course, what kind of stuff do you learn? Just how things interact with the stuff around them(yes that was broad)....

                      Comment

                      • ascetic1
                        Registered User
                        • Feb 2005
                        • 95

                        #12
                        im not in pyhsics yet, next year, but i have dealt with some basic forms of it...
                        basically equations relating to distance, force, propulsion, time etc...

                        ex. time= distance/speed...

                        stuff like that

                        Comment

                        • gimp
                          Registered User
                          • Jan 2001
                          • 2368

                          #13
                          Basic physics is kind of boring to me. It's all about throwing balls and seeing where they're gonna land. Once you get into electricity and magnetism and all that stuff it gets interesting. You know, things that you can't see with the naked eye. Physics is really just applied math.

                          It's definetly a good course to take.

                          Comment

                          • xmetal2001
                            Junior Member at heart
                            • May 2001
                            • 1994

                            #14
                            Yea, E&M is the good part about physics -- you just have to suffer through mechanics to get to it.

                            Comment

                            • CoolHand
                              Logic Industries LLC
                              • Jan 2003
                              • 3769

                              #15
                              Originally posted by bleachit
                              I think "e" is a constant.. so you may be able to find that in the text book.

                              if K is not listed, then it is understood to be zero.
                              You are correct. "e" is the charge on the electron which according to my handy dandy sheet of constants (still stashed from my stint with phys 24) = 1.602176462 x 10^-19 C

                              This kind of physics is cool, but not of much practical use (or at least not as useful as Newtonian Physics). In order to be able to solve these kinds of problems, they have to be drastically over simplified, to the point that they are not of much use in the real world anymore.

                              Its still neat though.
                              Ryan Shanks
                              Logic Industries LLC

                              Comment

                              Working...