B I don't get instantaneous impulse

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of instantaneous impulse as presented in a mechanics book. It clarifies that impulse is defined as the change in momentum, applicable to all scenarios, including those with very short force durations. The text emphasizes that even when force and time are unknown, the relationship between impulse and momentum remains valid. The confusion arises from the specific mention of instantaneous impulse, but it is reiterated that this principle holds universally. Understanding this concept is crucial for grasping momentum dynamics in physics.
atharba
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
I was reading this A-level mechanics book by L. Bostock and S. Chandler. The chapter was momentum and in it, there's a section about instantaneous impulse. It says "There are many occasions when a force acts for so short a time that the effect is instantaneous, example a bat striking a ball, in such cases, although the magnitude of the force and the time for which it acts may be unknown, there is, nevertheless, an instantaneous impulse whose value is equal to the change in momentum produced"

But since impulse is equal to "the change in momentum which it produces" then why did the book just specify that in that case the impulse is equal to the change in momentum? Shouldn't this be the case for all impulses and not just the instantaneous ones?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
atharba said:
then why did the book just specify that in that case the impulse is equal to the change in momentum?
It did not, it just said that the impulse is equal to the change in momentum in that case just as in any other case - even if you do not know the force or the time over which the force acts.
 
  • Like
Likes atharba and topsquark
Orodruin said:
It did not, it just said that the impulse is equal to the change in momentum in that case just as in any other case - even if you do not know the force or the time over which the force acts.
Thanks a lot!!
 
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