How Does Calculus Explain the Changes in Notation in Rocket Equation Derivation?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the calculus derivation of the rocket equation, specifically the transition from delta notation (Δ) to differential notation (d) and the integration process. It clarifies that deltas can be swapped for d's when the changes become infinitesimally small, indicating a limit approach. The integration at the end of the derivation is explained as a method to sum contributions of infinitesimals, similar to summation in discrete cases. The example provided illustrates how the notation shifts from discrete to continuous, emphasizing the underlying mathematical principles. Understanding these notational changes is crucial for grasping the derivation of the rocket equation.
Jimmy87
Messages
692
Reaction score
19

Homework Statement


Hi, need some help trying to understand calculus derivation of the rocket equation. If someone who be so kind as to look at the attachment where it is all laid out.

Homework Equations


All equations are listed in the attachment

The Attempt at a Solution


I have had a good go at this and understand all the derivatives and integrations just not the subtle details. I don't get how you can swap all the deltas for d's towards the end of the derivation. From the research I have done on the web, delta m (mass) is not the same as dm so how can you suddenly change from deltas to d's? For example the mass starts off as delta m, then goes to dm and then disappears! Also what is the reason for suddenly integrating both sides of the equation right at the end? I understand why you take the derivative as this gives you the force (dp/dt) but why then integrate the velocity on the left then the mass on the right?

Thank you for any guidance given![/B]
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
I don't get how you can swap all the deltas for d's towards the end of the derivation
You can change deltas to dees when the "change in" becomes infinitesimally small ... i.e. in the limit that the size of the change approaches zero. It's one way of thinking about what the infinitesimal interval means - but it is also a form of sloppy notation.

Physics is full of this sort of shorthand, you get used to it.

Also what is the reason for suddenly integrating both sides of the equation right at the end?
... that is just to add up the contributions of each infinitesimal.
$$A_i = B_i\implies \sum A_i = \sum B_i$$
The integration sign is like the summation sign, but for the continuous case rather than the discrete case.

If you have seen Reimann sums, then you may prefer to do it in the other order - add up all the deltas and then take the limit.

Consider a simple example:

$$\Delta x=v\Delta t \implies dx = v(t)\;dt \implies \int dx = \int v\; dt$$ ... see what happened?
If the velocity between ##t_i## and ##t_i+\Delta t## is ##v(t_i)##, then ##v(t)## is the velocity between ##t## and ##t+dt##.
All I've done is to change notation from the discrete case to the continuous case.
 
  • Like
Likes Jimmy87
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Back
Top