How Does Impulsive Force Affect Particle Velocity Over Time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samuelb88
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving the relationship between impulsive force and particle velocity over time. The participant analyzes the force acting on a particle of mass m, concluding that the integral of the force over time should yield the change in momentum, leading to the equation x'(h) = mv(h). They express frustration with a potential error in the textbook, suggesting it may have omitted the mass m in its solution. Additionally, they emphasize the importance of checking units in equations to verify correctness. The conversation highlights the need for clarity in understanding the implications of force and mass in motion equations.
Samuelb88
Messages
160
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Suppose that on the time interval [0,h] we have a force acting along the x-axis with magnitude 0 \leq f(t) at time t, and f(0) = f(h) = 0. For a particle of mass m starting at rest, so that its distance x(t) from 0 satisfies 0 = x(0) = x'(0), show that x'(h) = \int_0^h f(t) dt.

The Attempt at a Solution


This is one of those problems where I swear I am right and the book is wrong. :biggrin:

Let P denote the particle. Then on the interval [0,h], the force f(t) acts on P along the x-axis so henceforth I will write f(t) = (f(t),0) = f(t). The second law tells me that mx'' = f(t). Hence
\int_0^h f(t) dt = \int_0^h m x'' dt = \int_0^h mv' dt = mv(h) - mv(0) = mv(h)

since v(0) = x'(0) = 0. So this seems to contradict what I was suppose to show except in the special case that m=1. I haven't really used my assumption that f(0) = 0 = f(h), but I can't think of how that would tie into this problem other than tell me that there is no net force acting on P at both t=0 and t=h. Would someone mind giving me some pointers on this one? :smile:

- Sam
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are correct. It's likely this is a simple typo in the book, omitting the m from the solution, especially since they went to the trouble of saying "a particle of mass m".

EDIT added:
When in doubt it's often helpful to check units in an equation, which in this case proves the equation in the book must be wrong. Note that the "dt" inside the integral contributes a factor of seconds to the resulting units.
 
Last edited:
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Back
Top