How Does Taylor's Mechanics Address Rocket Momentum with Changing Mass?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on analyzing rocket momentum as mass changes, particularly in the context of fuel ejection. At time t, the rocket's momentum is expressed as P(t) = mv, incorporating the fuel's momentum since it shares the same velocity. As the rocket expels fuel, the new momentum at time t + dt is calculated, accounting for the change in mass and the velocity of the expelled fuel. The confusion arises regarding the treatment of the fuel's momentum before it burns, as it initially contributes to the rocket's total momentum. The key point is that the fuel's momentum is effectively included in the initial momentum equation, even though its state changes after burning.
Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5
Hello,

I am reading section 3.2, concerning the analyzation of a moving rocket with a changing mass. (I couldn't find a preview of the book in google books, so hopefully someone out there has this textbook.) Here is an except from the book, but be warned that I am adding notes in brackets:

"At time t, the momentum [of the rocket] is P(t) = mv [m and v are the mass and velocity of the rocket at time t]. A short time later at t + dt, the rockets mass is (m + dm), where dm is negative, and its momentum is (m+dm)(v+dv). The fuel ejected in the time dt has mass (-dm) and velocity v - vex [v is the velocity of the rocket as viewed by some stationary person on earth, and vex is rate at which the fuel flows out, relative to the rocket]. Thus, the total momentum (rocket plus the fuel just ejected) at t + dt is
P(t+dt) = (m + dm)(v+dv) - dm(v - vex)."

As one might notice, as I did, they accounted for the momentum of the fuel at time t+dt, which is - dm(v - vex) (there's a negative because the momentum is in the opposite direction); but at time t, they did not, for the expression is P(t) = mv. Where is the momentum term for the fuel at time t?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bashyboy said:
Where is the momentum term for the fuel at time t?

Before it burns, the fuel has the same velocity as the rocket, so its momentum is part of the P(t) = mv.

You could write
(m+dm)v - (dm)v
if you really want to separate out "the momentum of the fuel of mass -dm that you are going to burn next" and "the momentum of everything else". But of course (m+dm)v - (dm)v = mv.
 
Isn't the velocity of the fuel at any instant v - vex?
 
The fuel has velocity v before it burns, and v - vex after it burns.

At time t, the bit of fuel with mass dm hasn't burned yet. At time t+dt, it has burned.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top