You are not logged in.
Hi bobbmy.
I am just going by what my teacher said.
"The rate of cooling of an object is directly proportional to the difference in temperature of the surroundings and the temperature of the object."
Wait, the temperature of the oven, in this model, is constant. Could I just write
?
A heating a cooling differential equation word problem:
"Blood plasma is stored at 40 degrees F. Before it can be used, it must be at 90 degrees F. When the plasma is placed in an oven at 120 degrees F, it takes 45 minutes for the plasma to warm to 90 degrees F. Assume Newton's Law of cooling applies. How long will it take the plasma to warm to 90 degrees F if the oven temperature is set at 100 degrees F?"
Looking up Newton's Law of Cooling, I believe a good starting place is to state the equation as
where T is the temperature at time t and that change is directly proportional to the difference between the surrounding temperature of the chamber and that of the object.
Listing the initial values...
(for a 120F oven)And so, what the problem is asking for is for us to find the time it will take to warm the plasma all the way up to 90 F if the oven is only 100. Just working off of the definition of Newton's Law of Cooling, here is a first attempt at setting up the problem:
That isn't right but I am not sure how to specify two different temperatures for two different objects, the oven and the plasma, t 0 and time t.
I caught it. Thanks so much. ![]()
bobbmy - Thanks for your help! I have a few other "tricky" problems I'll post but I think I am getting the hang of it. I am still trying to learn Newton's Law of Cooling, which I have a couple of specific examples to use.
bob - ahhh... Yes, at time t. My instructor does make a lot of typos. This was just a suggested practice sheet - the worst is when they appear on exams. And thanks, too, for the physics explanation! That puts it into context.
Okay, well, a couple of questions. First, do you enter all of the values for the constants before or after the differential equation has been solved? Second, there are two functions of time: amperes, I(t), and the electromotive force that provides voltage 12.
Here is my effort in setting it up in a way I think may be best. Is this in the right direction or am I mistaken?
Solving for the conditions given,
Is that the end of the problem? I am not sure what is meant by "find I and t" if it means more than finding I as a function of t.
Thanks.
I have never taken physics and I do not understand what the question is asking.
"Kirchoff's Law states that a simple circuit containing a resistor of R ohms and an inductor of L Henrys in series with a source of electromotive force that supplies a voltage E(t) volts at time t satisfies
where I is the current measured in amperes.
Consider a circuit with L = 6 Henrys, R = 6 ohms, and a battery supplying a constant 12 volts. If I = 0 at t = 0, find I at time t."
I have no idea what most of that means. Do I need to understand physics to be able to solve the problem? Or is it like that raindrop problem from a week or so back that implies physics but does not require a knowledge of it?
Thanks!
I am confident in that solution but I am also very tired so if I made a mistake I'll fix it!
I am about to post another more difficult problem. I hope that all these solutions help others looking for worked out problems like these!
Sorry.... went to bed and had other things going on today.
So... you are correct. I realize why it would be only t and not 2t. So here is my work. Is my solution satisfactory? (I did not show too many steps this time.)
The mix is leaving the tank slower than it is coming in.
Hello.
I am still getting the hang of mixture problems. Here is one.
"A mixing tank initially contains 120 gallons of brine which in turn contains 75 pounds of salt in its solution. A new brine containing 1.2 pounds of salt per gallon begins entering the tank at t=0 and at the rate of 2 gallons per minute while the uniform mixture flows out of the tank at 1 gallon per minute. Assuming the mixture is kept always uniform, find the amount of salt in the tank at the end of 1 hour."
And here is how I have it set up:
I would like some feed back on how it is set up because, done this way, it is not separable and therefore needs one of those exponentials with an integral in the power.
How's it look? And yep, I am solving it by hand. ![]()
All respect, working in as many "last words" as possible and copying and pasting, so to speak, from Wikipedia isn't helping. I taught myself how to do the formula by hand a year ago when my math teacher refused to teach it to me. What I am looking for is a derivation of the formula.
You know... a proof.
I have contacted a mathematics professor about it from a statistics class. When I obtain the derivation process I shall post it here to benefit others who may also be interested in learning about where the formula comes from.
Thanks...
No, the derivatives would be the same.
Anyway, this question was about deriving the formula itself.
Yep. You never got back to me. The question I have now is about deriving the formula and, hopefully, learning about the formula itself. I thought it more appropriate, therefore, in the formula forum.
If anyone has a proof/derivation of this formula, I thank ye. I do not have a lot of books on statistics or physics.
Hello!
I am curious and trying to learn more about Thiele's Interpolation Formula, the mechanics of how it works, and understanding, in general, how it is derived, among other things.
That which fascinates me about the formula is an odd inversion of the function within the function itself that seems to appear with any set of three points friendly enough with the function to not divide by zero. For example, if you solve the formula for the three symmetric points
you get the formula
which, on the domain from 0 to 100 creates a pretty graph whose derivatives are 9 when x = 0, 1 when x = 25, and 1/9 when x = 100, simply using the values of x from the points given above.
What's bizarre is that the function has an inverse of itself across the vertical asymptotic line and in the second quadrant which is shifted over by a value equal but negative to the second x value (-25)and up by the second y value (75). The inverse in the second quadrant therefore has derivatives equal to and equidistant to those of the function's curve in the first quadrant, proving they are the same.
How does this work? How can a function contain its own inverse?
My observation of this goings on stems from my attempts at curve fitting which can be found elsewhere in the "Help Me!" portion of the forum, though by now I believe it must be buried several pages back.
Thank you for your input!
I woke up early before class and finished the problem. I am confident the solution is correct, even if a typo or two slipped in somewhere, and is here shown. Steps were omitted here and there to reduce length but not so many as to confuse.
The original differential equation:
Separate the variables and integrate both sides to solve the differential equation:
To solve the left integral first, let
The integral for partial fractions is set up by solving for a and b:
The system of equations, then, is
Solving the system yields that
Ergo...
Returning to solve the original differential equation, and that for A(t),
Because B represents area of the growth, it may here be disregarded.
Solving for the constant, C turns out to be 1.
Now, recall that the hyperbolic sine and cosine functions from trigonometry are:
And so, substituting for "x", we get
Factoring gives
Which indeed reduces to
The solution, therefore, is
And there you have it.
I'll double check my work in the morning. It's been too long a day. Thanks for your input.
Which is... ?
I wasn't really sure how since there aren't any real numbers... only constants. If you know how, here is the solution I found.
And of course I did the work.
I aim to master the subject as well as my mind, the best I may.
I solved it but it took several pages and I do not want to post it. I just hope it is correct.
Great! I'll be back in however long with progress.
I got an error. I am pretty tired... what did I type wrong? (See image.)
Thanks. I still need to figure out the second half of the problem by using integration by partial fractions by hand. Let me know if you come up with anything. I will work on it too.
The second half of the problem says to solve the differential equation for A(t). I want to do it by hand to see how to do it. We don't get to use computers on exams.
I was trying to solve the second half of the problem first. Here is the solution to the first half of the problem. Differentiate the differential equation and set that derivative equal to 0 to show that the growth of the culture is fastest when one-third of the whole possible surface is populated by the culture.
That is where the growth is at a maximum.