Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: more acceleration



Your bright student could be encouraged to go one step further. Since
the acceleration function is the derivative of the velocity function, what
do you expect is happening to the velocity function at the instant that
the acceleration is zero? What, to be more explicit, is the direction of
the tangent to the velocity function at that instant? Draw a picture of
the the velocity and acceleration functions.


On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, cliff parker wrote:

A test question on yesterday's exam involved periodic motion. I offered the
example of an object bobbing up and down on a spring suspended from above as
an example of periodic motion. Several questions were asked about
velocities, accelerations, and forces when the object was in various
positions. One question asked what the acceleration of the object was when
it had returned to the equilibrium position on the way up. I was looking to
hear answers and reasoning such as -- At this point the forces are balanced,
there is no net force, therefore no acceleration. A particularly bright
student responded as follows.

"This is a tough one. Because the forces are balanced, there should be
constant velocity (no acceleration). However velocity is never constant in
this situation, so the best way to describe acceleration is that it is
transferring from positive acceleration to negative acceleration."

I had not thought about the problem as thoroughly as he did. I like it when
my students stretch my thinking! I know we have had discussion of
situations similar to this over the past few days but I was wondering what
others thought the best answer to this question would be. Is acceleration
simply undefined at this point?


--
"Don't push the river, it flows by itself"
Frederick Perls