Kinetic Energy Time Derivative

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the time derivative of kinetic energy, particularly focusing on the case where mass is not constant. The original poster attempts to prove that the time derivative of the product of mass and kinetic energy relates to the force acting on the system.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the product rule to the time derivative of kinetic energy when mass is changing. There are questions about the validity of assuming mass as a constant in the derivation of the kinetic energy's time derivative.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered alternative approaches and expressed concerns about the assumptions made in the original derivation. There is an ongoing exploration of how to correctly handle the time derivative in the context of changing mass.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the original problem involves kinetic energy and changing mass, which introduces complexity in the application of standard formulas. There is also mention of the need for clarity in notation and expression to facilitate understanding.

cooev769
Messages
114
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



So the first part asks to prove the time derivative of kinetic energy is dT/dt=F dot product v which I did not problem. but then the second part of the problem asks to prove that if the mass is changing with time then the time derivative of d(mT)/dt=F dot product m and I'm sure this can be correct shown in my attempt at a solution below.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
If we are to assume that both kinetic energy and m and no constant with time then d(mT)/dt can be given using the product rule as = m dot T + m T dot.

m T dot will be as T dot is F dot product v = m F.v = F.p

Which is supposed to be the answer, but the first term will be non zero, given m dot is non zero, the first term goes to:

m dot 0.5 m r dot dot product r dot. This is only zero is the m dot is zero or mass or r dot is zero, but this is not a fair assumption. Hence how can his answer be correct. It seems as if he's just multipled dT/dt=F.v by m on both sides and then said well m is independent of time and hence it can go in the derivative. But his question is with m changing. Am i wrong?

Thanks

Evan
 
Physics news on Phys.org
\frac{d}{dt}(\frac{1}{2}mv^{2})=\frac{1}{2}\frac{dm}{dt}\cdot v^{2}+\frac{1}{2}m\frac{dv^{2}}{dv}\frac{dv}{dt}
 
The forum software provides you with typesetting tools. You should use them as your post as written is not easy to follow. Proofreading your post and fixing typos wouldn't hurt either.

cooev769 said:

Homework Statement



So the first part asks to prove the time derivative of kinetic energy is dT/dt=F dot product v which I did not problem. but then the second part of the problem asks to prove that if the mass is changing with time then the time derivative of d(mT)/dt=F dot product m and I'm sure this can be correct shown in my attempt at a solution below.
How can you dot F and m? The mass m is a scalar.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
If we are to assume that both kinetic energy and m and no constant with time then d(mT)/dt can be given using the product rule as = m dot T + m T dot.

m T dot will be as T dot is F dot product v = m F.v = F.p
You derived the expression for ##\dot{T}## under the assumption the mass was constant, so you can't use it here.

Which is supposed to be the answer, but the first term will be non zero, given m dot is non zero, the first term goes to:

m dot 0.5 m r dot dot product r dot. This is only zero is the m dot is zero or mass or r dot is zero, but this is not a fair assumption. Hence how can his answer be correct. It seems as if he's just multipled dT/dt=F.v by m on both sides and then said well m is independent of time and hence it can go in the derivative. But his question is with m changing. Am i wrong?
Another approach you could take is to start by expressing the kinetic energy in terms of momentum instead of velocity.
 
True let me have another go :)
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K