Expression for orbital eccentricity

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving an expression for orbital eccentricity (e) in terms of initial speed (v), radius (r), and flight path angle (x). The user attempts to manipulate equations related to angular momentum and energy to express e, but finds the resulting formula complex and unwieldy. They express concern about potentially misunderstanding the underlying geometry or relationships. Despite the complexity, they note that similar expressions exist in textbooks, suggesting that the intricacy may be inherent to the problem. The user concludes that they will retain their current formulation for eccentricity.
Robaj
Messages
13
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement



From Prussing and Conway (Q1.11): derive an expression for the eccentricity e in terms of the initial speed v, radius r, and flight path angle x (they use gamma).

Homework Equations



(1) h^2 = mu*a*(1-e^2) [a is semimajor axis, mu is gravitational parameter]
(2) h = r*v*cos(x)
(3) v^2 = mu*((2/r)-(1/a))

The Attempt at a Solution



Rearrange (1): a = h^2/(mu*(1-e^2))

Sub in (2): a = (r^2*v^2*cos^2(x)) / (mu*(1-e^2))

Rearrange for e: e^2 = 1-[(r^2*v^2*cos^2(x)) / (mu*a)]

Rearrange (3) in terms of a and sub in: e^2 = 1-[(r^2*v^2*cos^2(x)) / mu]*[(2/r)-(v^2/mu)]

This seems far too unwieldy.. have I misunderstood the basic geometry or relationships behind the problem? I've been unable to find an expression for e = f(r,v,x) anywhere .

Thanks for your help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think it can be made significantly simpler if it has to be expressed as a function of r, v, and γ. At least one of my textbooks has a similar unruly expression for e (although it uses a instead of v).
 
Ok, I'll leave it as it is. Thanks a lot.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top