Calculating Acceleration with Varying Mass: Tutorial & Exercises

AI Thread Summary
To calculate acceleration with varying mass and constant thrust, the formula a = T/m applies, requiring calculus for accurate results. As mass increases, the acceleration decreases, indicated by the derivative of T/m with respect to mass. For displacement and time calculations under non-constant acceleration, traditional equations like d = x + v*t + 1/2 a*t^2 are not applicable; instead, integration of acceleration over time is necessary. This leads to a double integral approach to determine velocity and position changes. Understanding these principles is essential for solving problems in dynamics involving varying mass systems.
mraptor
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
hi,

I want to calculate how is acceleration changing if I have changing mass, but constant trust i.e. :

T = m*a

a = T / m

(I know it has to be calculus).
Then again I also wan't to be able to calculate displacement and velocities etc..
Trying to find somewhere on the internet a tutorial on equations of motion when the acceleration is varying.. but most of the time I find equations for constant-acceleration.
Do you have a good tutorial ? (don't point me to wikipedia, it is good as reference but not as tutorial)
I would like also to have some simple Exersises, so I can figure out how it is done in general.

thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are on the right track. a = T/m and it takes calculus.

The derivitive of 1/m with respect to m is -1/m2

So for constant T, the derivitive of T/m with respect to m is -T/m2

The minus sign indicates that as m increases the quotient T/m decreases.
 
Nice.. ok now how can I calculate displacement or time taken to cross specific distans having this acceleration...
I suppose I can't use :

d = x + v*t + 1/2 a*t^2

because this is only valid for constant acceleration ?
 
You are correct. For a non-constant acceleration instead of computing the change in velocity by simply multiplying acceleration by time, you have to compute it by integrating acceleration over time using calculus.

Similarly, for a non-constant velocity you compute change in position by integrating velocity over time rather than simply multiplying velocity by time.

You end up with a double integral.

The first integration to compute velocity as a function of time results in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
 
Conservation of momentum, mv, leads to (mv)'= m'v+ mv'= 0 (the ' indicates the derivative) if there is no external force. If there is a force, then we do not have conservartion of momentum but have (mv)'= m'v+ mv'= F.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...

Similar threads

Back
Top