1
$\begingroup$

On the web (ie, Wikipedia, and other sites) it seems that exponential decay is always defined as the situation $f\;'(t) = -kf(t)$. However, is not Newton’s Law of Cooling an example of exponential decay? But Newton’s Law of Cooling does not fit this form. What is missing is a constant. If we define exponential decay to be the situation $f'(t) = w - kf(t)$, then everything’s fine. So, is there in fact a constant missing (for convenience?) from the widely-disseminated definition of exponential decay, or, as I suspect, is the definition not all that fixed, depending on some judicious arm-waving as the occasion demands?

  • 2
    If you say that $f(t)$ is the difference, at time $t$, between the object's temperature and the temperature of the surroundings, then Newton's law of cooling _does_ fit that form.2011-10-19
  • 0
    @Michael Hardy: Bingo. THAT answers my question. I'm shamefaced I didn't notice it myself. Anyway, if you will post your comment as an answer, I will accept it.2011-10-19

2 Answers 2

2

With a positive constant $k,$ and other constants $A,B,$ exponential decay is $$ f(t) = A + B e^{- k t},$$ where you can work out the O.D.E. as you like. Examples include the battery charging curve, also called capacitor, in which $A$ is positive and $B= -A.$

  • 0
    I agree, but this is not what Wikipedia and the others say, and it is accounting for the discrepancy that is the point of my question.2011-10-19
1

Solutions to $f'=-kf$ decay (exponentially) to zero. Your cup of coffee doesn't cool down to zero degrees, it cools down (exponentially) to room temperature, and that's the $w$ of $f'=w-kf$. If you rejigged your temperature scale to measure degrees above room temperature instead of degrees above zero, Newton Cooling would be $f'=-kf$.

  • 0
    Yes, I know, but you have sidestepped the point of my question, which is why there is a discrepancy between what I think and what Wikipedia and the others say.2011-10-19
  • 0
    The "discrepancy" between what you think and what Wikipedia et al say is less than the discrepancy between Celsius and Fahrenheit as definitions of temperature. That one involves a change of scale, yours, only a change of origin. Learn to live with (small, well-regulated amounts of) ambiguity.2011-10-19
  • 0
    But whether an instance of ambiguity is one of those that is small and well-regulated is itself ambiguous:)2011-10-20
  • 0
    BTW, learning to live with small, well-regulated amounts of ambiguity is part and parcel of what learning a human language (English, French, German, …) is all about.2011-10-21