Change in chemical energy of rocket

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of energy in a rocket's chemical potential energy, specifically focusing on the total energy expended and the useful work done. The total energy expended is calculated as 19800 joules, with only 35% being effectively used, resulting in 6930 joules of useful work. Participants explore the relationships between energy expended, useful work, and efficiency, noting that wasted energy means work expended exceeds useful work done. The conversation highlights the importance of defining efficiency correctly and understanding the various forms of energy involved, such as gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy. Overall, the thread emphasizes the need for accurate calculations and understanding of energy relationships in rocket propulsion.
isukatphysics69
Messages
453
Reaction score
8

Homework Statement



piccc.PNG

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


IMG_20180503_234123.jpg


19800*.35 = 6930J
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20180503_234123.jpg
    IMG_20180503_234123.jpg
    14.8 KB · Views: 621
  • piccc.PNG
    piccc.PNG
    10.6 KB · Views: 667
Physics news on Phys.org
really need help here
 
isukatphysics69 said:
19800*.35 = 6930J
What is the relationship between the energy expended, the useful work done, and the efficiency?
 
  • Like
Likes isukatphysics69
haruspex said:
What is the relationship between the energy expended, the useful work done, and the efficiency?
energy expended divided by work is efficiency?
 
isukatphysics69 said:
energy expended divided by work is efficiency?
Would that tend to produce a value > 1 or < 1?
 
  • Like
Likes isukatphysics69
haruspex said:
Would that tend to produce a value > 1 or < 1?
it depends tho
 
isukatphysics69 said:
it depends tho
Will the work expended be more or less than the useful work done?
Where might the work expended go?
 
  • Like
Likes isukatphysics69
ok so since there is wasted energy then the work expended is more than the useful work done
 
isukatphysics69 said:
ok so since there is wasted energy then the work expended is more than the useful work done
So what would be a sensible way to define efficiency?
 
  • Like
Likes isukatphysics69
  • #10
haruspex said:
So what would be a sensible way to define efficiency?
so 35/100 particles of rocketfuel are usefull
so that's 35% so 35% of the total energy is 35% of 19800
 
  • #11
Right, so what should you do with the 19800J you calculated?
 
  • Like
Likes isukatphysics69
  • #12
haruspex said:
Right, so what should you do with the 19800J you calculated?
so total energy expended was 19800 jules. only 35 percent of that is used efficiently so out of the total 19800 6930 was put to use that's what i thought
 
  • #13
isukatphysics69 said:
so total energy expended was 19800 jules
No. How did you calculate the 19800 J? Go back and check.
 
  • Like
Likes isukatphysics69
  • #14
haruspex said:
No. How did you calculate the 19800 J? Go back and check.
oh yea ok so the change in chemical potential energy was 19800 joules
 
  • #15
isukatphysics69 said:
oh yea ok so the change in chemical potential energy was 19800 joules
There are the following quantities of work...

Useful work done
Total work done
19800J
GPE gained
KE gained
Chemical PE lost
Work lost to heat, sound etc.

What are all the relationships between these?
 
  • Like
Likes isukatphysics69
  • #16
haruspex said:
There are the following quantities of work...

Useful work done
Total work done
19800J
GPE gained
KE gained
Chemical PE lost
Work lost to heat, sound etc.

What are all the relationships between these?
They all have to do with energy
 
  • #17
isukatphysics69 said:
They all have to do with energy
No, I mean what equations relate them. Some are equal, some add up to equal others...
 
  • #18
haruspex said:
There are the following quantities of work...What are all the relationships between these?

Total work done = GPE gained + Work lost to heat, sound etc. + KE gained
Chemical PE lost = 19800J Since it is the change in PE
Useful work done = KE gained​
 
  • #19
isukatphysics69 said:
Total work done = GPE gained + Work lost to heat, sound etc. + KE gained
Yes.
isukatphysics69 said:
Chemical PE lost = 19800J Since it is the change in PE
No. Look at how you calculated 19800J in post #1. I see nothing about chemical PE there.
isukatphysics69 said:
Useful work done = KE gained
You left out GPE gained.
 
  • #20
haruspex said:
Yes.

No. Look at how you calculated 19800J in post #1. I see nothing about chemical PE there.

You left out GPE gained.
ok there is a mistake there both sides should be multiplied by negative 1 so CPE final - CPE initial will be ΔCPE
 
  • #21
isukatphysics69 said:
ok there is a mistake there both sides should be multiplied by negative 1 so CPE final - CPE initial will be ΔCPE
No.
Please try to address my points in post #19.
 
Back
Top