Newton's laws in variable mass systems

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of Newton's laws to variable mass systems, specifically using a spray can as an example. Participants debate whether the force generated by the spray can is constant across different inertial frames. It is established that while the mass flow rate and exhaust velocity are constant, the force is frame-dependent due to the variable mass of the system. The conclusion emphasizes that Newton's second law, defined as F=dp/dt, is not a Galilean invariant and requires careful consideration of reference frames when applied to systems with changing mass.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's laws of motion
  • Familiarity with the concept of variable mass systems
  • Knowledge of momentum and its relation to force (F=dp/dt)
  • Basic principles of inertial and non-inertial reference frames
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of variable mass systems in classical mechanics
  • Learn about the conservation laws related to momentum and energy
  • Explore the differences between inertial and non-inertial frames in physics
  • Investigate the application of F=ma in non-constant mass scenarios
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, engineers, and anyone interested in the dynamics of variable mass systems, particularly in aerospace applications.

  • #61
When dealing with systems with variable mass, one needs to consider not only the "reactive forces", but also the shifting of the center of mass of a system due to its mass redistribution. Let us find an equation of motion for the center of mass of an open and not isolated system A.

In order that Newton's Laws be applicable, we must consider both the closure and isolation of this system A + B by identifying all the particles that flow out and into the system during a time interval \Delta t as well as all particles that exert forces on the particles.

The acceleration of the center of mass of the system is given by:

<br /> \mathbf{a}^{(A)}_{\mathrm{C M}}(t) = \frac{d \mathbf{v}^{(A)}_{\mathrm{C M}}(t)}{dt}<br />

where the velocity of the center of mass is by definition given by:

<br /> \mathbf{v}^{(A)}_{\mathrm{C M}}(t) \equiv \frac{\mathbf{P}^{(A)}(t)}{M^{(A)}(t)}<br />

where:

<br /> \mathbf{P}^{(A)}(t) = \sum_{a \in A(t)}{\mathbf{p}_{a}(t)}<br />

is the total momentum of the particles in the system A at the instant t and:

<br /> M^{(A)}(t) = \sum_{a \in A(t)}{m_{a}}<br />

is their total mass. As was pointed out by D-H's derivation in post #37, these quantities can be time dependent in two different ways: Either because the quantities that enter the sum change with time, or because the set over which we sum changes itself, or both, of course.

According to the rules of Calculus, we may write:

<br /> \mathbf{a}^{(a)}_{\mathrm{C M}})(t) = \frac{1}{M^{(A)}(t)} \, \frac{d \mathbf{P}^{(A)}(t)}{d t} - \frac{\mathbf{P}^{(A)}(t)}{[M^{(A)}(t)]^{2}} \, \frac{d M^{(A)}(t)}{d t}<br />

or:

<br /> M^{(A)}(t) \, \mathbf{a}^{(A)}_{\mathrm{C M}}(t) = \frac{d \mathbf{P}^{(A)}(t)}{d t} - \frac{\mathbf{P}^{(A)}(t)}{M^{(A)}(t)} \, \frac{d M^{(A)}(t)}{d t} = \frac{d \mathbf{P}^{(A)}(t)}{d t} - \mathbf{V}^{(A)}_{\mathrm{C M}}(t) \, \frac{d M^{(A)}(t)}{d t}<br />

Let us find the derivatives on the rhs of this equality. In doing so, we will adopt the following notation. Let the index a enumerate the particles that were inside the system A at time t; let the index i enumerate the particles that exited system A into system B and let j enumerate the particles that entered from B to A during the time interval \Delta t. Then we have:

<br /> \mathbf{P}^{(A)}(t + \Delta t) = \sum_{a}{\mathbf{p}_{a}(t + \Delta t)} - \sum_{i}{\mathbf{p}_{i}(t + \Delta t)} + \sum_{j}{\mathbf{p}_{j}(t + \Delta t)}<br />

We will keep quantities up to order O(\Delta t) in the above sum. It is important to realize that the number of particles that enter or exit (and, therefore, both the mass and momentum they carry with them) is a quantity of the order O(\Delta t). That is why we can exchange the argument from t + \Delta t to t in the last two sums. Similarly, we can write:

<br /> p_{a}(t + \Delta t) = p_{a}(t) + \Delta t \, \sum_{b \in A + B, b \neq a}{\mathbf{F}_{b a}(t)} + o(\Delta t) = p_{a}(t) + \Delta t \, \left[\sum_{a&#039; \in A, a&#039; \neq a}{\mathbf{F}_{a&#039; a}(t)} + \sum_{b \in B}{\mathbf{F}_{b a}(t)}\right] + o(\Delta t)<br />

Collecting everything together, we may write:

<br /> \mathbf{P}^{(A)}(t + \Delta t) = \mathbf{P}^{(A)}(t) + \Delta t \, \left[\sum_{a, a&#039; \in A, a&#039; \neq a}{\mathbf{F}_{a&#039; a}(t)} + \sum_{a \in A, b \in B}{\mathbf{F}_{b a}(t)}\right] - \sum_{i \in \Delta N_{\mathrm{out}}}{m_{i} \mathbf{v}_{i}(t)} + \sum_{j \in \Delta N_{\mathrm{in}}}{m_{j} \mathbf{v}_{j}(t)} + o(\Delta t)<br />

<br /> \frac{d\mathbf{P}^{(A)}(t)}{d t} = \sum_{a, a&#039; \in A, a&#039; \neq a}{\mathbf{F}_{a&#039; a}(t)} + \sum_{a \in A, b \in B}{\mathbf{F}_{b a}(t)} - \lim_{\Delta t \rightarrow 0}{\left[\frac{1}{\Delta t} \sum_{i \in \Delta N_{\mathrm{out}}}{m_{i} \, \mathbf{v}_{i}(t)} \right]} + \lim_{\Delta t \rightarrow 0}{\left[\frac{1}{\Delta t} \sum_{j \in \Delta N_{\mathrm{in}}}{m_{j} \, \mathbf{v}_{j}(t)} \right]}<br />

The first term in this equation is exactly equal to zero due to Third Newton's Law (the summation is over the same system A and \mathbf{F}_{a a&#039;} = -\mathbf{F}_{a&#039; a}) The second term is the sum of all the instantaneous external forces that act on the system \sum{\mathbf{F}_{\mathrm{ext}}(t)}. The third and the fourth term are the outgoing and incoming momentum flux, respectively, these are frame dependent quantities (because velocity is a frame dependent quantity). Although expressed as limits, these are actually finite quantities (if the particle flux is finite).

The other derivative is:

<br /> M^{(A)}(t + \Delta t) = \sum_{a}{m_{a}} - \sum_{i}{m_{i}} + \sum_{j}{m_{j}} = M^{(A)}(t) - \sum_{i \in \Delta N_{\mathrm{out}}}{m_{i}} + \sum_{j \in \Delta N_{\mathrm{in}}}{m_{j}}<br />

<br /> \frac{d M^{(A)}(t)}{d t} = -\lim_{\Delta t \rightarrow 0}{\left \frac{1}{\Delta t} \, \sum_{i \in \Delta N_{\mathrm{out}}}{m_{i}}\right]} + \lim_{\Delta t \rightarrow 0}{\left \frac{1}{\Delta t} \, \sum_{j \in \Delta N_{\mathrm{in}}}{m_{j}}\right]}<br />

Again, both of these terms are finite.

Combining everything together, we can finally write:

<br /> M^{(A)}(t) \, \mathbf{a}^{(A)}(t) = \sum{\mathbf{F}_{\mathrm{ext}}}(t) - \mathbf{\Pi}_{\mathrm{out}}(t) + \mathbf{\Pi}_{\mathrm{in}}(t)<br />

where \mathbf{\Pi}_{\mathrm{in/out}}(t) is the incoming (outgoing) momentum flux in the center-of-mass reference frame (a frame independent quantity, because relative velocities are Galilean invariants):

<br /> \mathbf{\Pi}_{\mathrm{out}}(t) = \lim_{\Delta t \rightarrow 0}{\left[\frac{1}{\Delta t} \, \sum_{i \in \Delta N_{\mathrm{out}}}{m_{i} \, \mathbf{u}_{i}}\right]}, \; \mathbf{u}_{i} = \mathbf{v}_{i} - \mathbf{v}^{(A)}_{\mathrm{C M}}<br />

<br /> \mathbf{\Pi}_{\mathrm{in}}(t) = \lim_{\Delta t \rightarrow 0}{\left[\frac{1}{\Delta t} \, \sum_{j \in \Delta N_{\mathrm{in}}}{m_{j} \, \mathbf{u}_{j}}\right]}, \; \mathbf{u}_{j} = \mathbf{v}_{j} - \mathbf{v}^{(A)}_{\mathrm{C M}}<br />

By specifying the number of particles that leave (enter) the system in unit time \varphi_{\mathrm{out}/\mathrm{in}}(m, \mathbf{u}, t) with a relative velocity in a unit velocity-space volume around \mathbf{u} and in unit interval around the mass m, we can express the above quantities as:

<br /> \mathbf{\Pi}_{\mathrm{out}/\mathrm{in}}(t) = \int{m \, \mathbf{u} \, \varphi_{\mathrm{out}/\mathrm{in}}(m, \mathbf{u}, t) \, d^{3}u \, dm}<br />

Also, the mass rate of change is:

<br /> \frac{d M^{(A)}(t)}{d t} = -\mu_{\mathrm{out}}(t) + \mu_{\mathrm{in}(t)}<br />

where the incoming (outgoing) mass flux rate is given by:

<br /> \mu_{\mathrm{out}/\mathrm{in}}(t) = \int{m \varphi_{\mathrm{out}/\mathrm{in}}(m, \mathbf{u}, t) \, d^{3}u \, dm}<br />
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Hmmm... I did not know that the "shifting of the center of mass" is physically allowable in a closed system. Any examples?
 
  • #63
pallidin said:
Hmmm... I did not know that the "shifting of the center of mass" is physically allowable in a closed system. Any examples?

But, no one said it's a closed system.
 
  • #64
There is no such thing as an open system.
All systems are closed by default.
Any examples on a totally open system?
 
  • #65
Let's get real here. Has a totally open system EVER been observed beyond mathematical construct in true reality?
Can't think of a single one...
 
  • #66
pallidin said:
There is no such thing as an open system.
All systems are closed by default.
Any examples on a totally open system?

Your body.
 
  • #67
pallidin said:
Hmmm... I did not know that the "shifting of the center of mass" is physically allowable in a closed system. Any examples?
A rocket that in the ten minutes or so that it takes to get from the ground to insertion orbit spews out 90% of of its mass. The center of mass does shift, and this shift does indeed impact the dynamics. Ignoring that effect results in an error on the order of 10s (maybe 100?) of meters. (It's been a while since I attacked this problem.)

Even worse, at least as far as modeling is concerned, is the impact on rotation. For translational state, all that matters is the rate at which the center of mass is moving within the vehicle. The rotational analog of a shifting center of mass is a shifting inertia tensor. However, knowing the rate at which the inertia tensor is changing is not enough to solve the rotational problem. You get a nasty line integral; the path taken by the flowing fuel / exhaust gases inside the vehicle also come into play. Normally this effect is very tiny (a launch vehicle turns about 9 degrees/minute during the climb to insertion burn). There are some other circumstances where this effect can be significant.
 
  • #68
pallidin said:
There is no such thing as an open system.
All systems are closed by default.
Any examples on a totally open system?
Jets, rockets, turbines, ...
 
  • #69
Jets, rockets and turbines can not perform without an external environment of some sort, even if it's just gravity itself.
The external environment envelopes and defines the nature of the thrust.
Being thus intertwined, the system is NOT closed.
 
Last edited:
  • #70
pallidin said:
Jets, rockets and turbines can not perform without an external environment of some sort, even if it's just gravity itself.
The external environment envelopes and defines the nature of the thrust.
Being thus intertwined, the system is NOT closed.

And that's what we said: the system is open.
 
  • #71
Open to what?
We have defined parameters that demands external forces are eminently and immutably existent.
How is that "closed" at all?
 
  • #72
Please chose one of the options below:

[1] Open mechanical systems exist;

[2] Open mechanical systems do not exist.

Read carefully before you chose.
 
  • #73
Dickfore said:
Please chose one of the options below:

[1] Open mechanical systems exist;

[2] Open mechanical systems do not exist.

Read carefully before you chose.

My answer, 2
Totally open mechanical systems are not physically possible.
Provide even one example of a totally open system.
 
  • #74
In classical physics and thermodynamics, systems can be isolated, closed, or open. An isolated system is truly isolated. It exchanges neither energy nor mass with its surroundings. The surroundings are completely irrelevant in the case of an isolated system. The surrounding environment is important for closed systems and open systems. A closed system exchanges energy but not mass with its surroundings. An open system exchanges energy and mass with its surroundings.

Isolated systems are nice for toy problems. The only true isolated system is the universe as a whole (maybe; I think the jury is still out even on that). Many systems are approximately isolated. The solar system, for example.

The solar system obviously is not truly isolated. It does interact gravitationally with nearby stars and the galaxies.The solar system is, in fact, an open system. Some of the solar wind does escape the solar system, and some of the interstellar medium crosses the heliopause into the solar system. So, how can the solar system be an open system and yet be accurately treated as an isolated system? Simple: The interactions are tiny. Those interactions can be safely ignored in many applications. Even the most accurate of the solar system ephemerides model do not model interactions with bodies outside of the solar system.

So the solar system illustrates one simple way to deal with the challenges presented by an open system: Pretend otherwise. A lot of physics involves knowing what simplifying assumptions could help with solving a problem and determining whether using those simplifying assumptions comprises the solution.

With a rocket ignoring the exhaust is not an option. The exhaust is an extremely important part of the dynamics of a rocket. (It is in a sense why the rocket goes.) The exhaust stream, however, is not important at all. What happens to the stuff in the exhaust stream once it is well past the shock boundary isn't going to impact what happens to the rocket one iota. Properly drawing the control surface that separates the system of interest from the surrounding environment is another one of those simplifying that physicists and engineers make.
 
  • #75
D H said:
An isolated system is truly isolated. It exchanges neither energy nor mass with its surroundings.

While true in a theoretical sense, it is not possible in the real world at all.
 
  • #76
Can it be shown, for example, that a totally isolated system can exist at all?
I want some evidence. Give me even a small piece to chew on.
Any takers?
 
  • #77
So what is the argument? DickFore has been talking about open systems. A rocket, for example. Reread the definitions of isolated, closed, and open systems, and then answer Dick's question in post #72.
 
  • #78
Jesus Christ! Will you choose a stance and stick to it?
 
  • #79
Dickfore said:
Jesus Christ! Will you choose a stance and stick to it?

What? There IS NO SUCH THING as a closed system(excepting the universe of course)
That's my stance from the beginning if you didn't notice.
Hello?
 
  • #80
No, your stance has been that an open system doesn't exist. That is what has Dick and I confused.

That said, there certainly are systems that are for all practical purposes closed or isolated. If the effects of some external interaction are orders of magnitude smaller than the effects from state uncertainties, measurement errors, etc., or orders of magnitude smaller than any physically meaning result, who cares? If all external interactions are dwarfed by uncertainties, errors, and significance, the system is for all practical purposes isolated.
 
  • #81
Can ANYONE show me even ONE pure example of an open-system?
No.
That's my point, and highly relevant to physics.
 
  • #82
?

Will you take a stance, please? And do stop using words like "totally open" and "pure example of an open system". That doesn't make sense.
 
  • #83
Well, then, allow me to rephrase.
Is there any experimental evidence which demonstrates that systems are totally isolated from another? Any at all? Please give evidence.
 
  • #84
I think your confusion is that you do not understand that open is the opposite of isolated. Reread the definitions in post #74, and if what I wrote doesn't make sense, use google.

To answer your question, yes, except for systems that are isolated by virtue of the expansion of space, all systems interact with one another to some extent. That said, no physicist is going to care about the gravitational effect of some extremely remote star on their Earthbound gravity experiment. The interaction is so incredibly tiny that it can be utterly ignored. It doesn't exist as far as the experiment is concerned.

Modeling a system as being isolated or closed is a useful abstraction -- when that abstraction is applicable.
 
  • #85
D H said:
?

Will you take a stance, please? And do stop using words like "totally open" and "pure example of an open system". That doesn't make sense.

Oh, what is wrong with "totally open"?
That simply means open without boundaries.
And "pure example" is only asking for the truth, that's all.
 
  • #86
D H said:
Modeling a system as being isolated or closed is a useful abstraction -- when that abstraction is applicable.

Upon which standard do you define the abstraction? Not easy, my friend.
 
  • #87
pallidin said:
Oh, what is wrong with "totally open"?
That simply means open without boundaries.
What's wrong with your terminology is that it is in complete disagreement with the standard definition of an open system. A system without boundaries cannot be open. Think of your house. Open the doors and windows and air flows into and out of the house. The house with the open windows and doors is an open system. Close all the doors, close all the windows, seal all the cracks and the air flow pretty much stops. That's a closed system (approximately). It's still not an isolated system because heat flows between the inside and outside the house through the closed windows, the closed doors, the walls, the floor, and the ceiling.
 
  • #89
I will retire for the evening and consider your thoughts.
Thank you.
 
  • #90
Dickfore said:
lol, what ever you say. I don't want to quarrel and get a ban. If someone reads this thread and knows Physics, they will draw a conclusion for themselves.

A ridiculous thread. cjl and Dickfore clearly have lot stronger understanding of basic mechanics than D H :rolleyes:

In the beginning cjl was trying to explain this:

cjl said:
Rocket motors do not change in thrust just because you attach them to a different vehicle. The force they generate is purely a function of their massflow and their exhaust velocity. Hence, vehicle mass and velocity are irrelevant.

D H disagrees. According to him the thrust must depend on the vehicle into which the rocket is attached. He justifies this by defending the importance of the concept of thrust.

D H said:
Or maybe, aerospace engineers thinking that the thrust produced by a jet or a rocket is a meaningful quantity and testable quantity is just plain goofy. NOT.

Makes no sense! The thrust produced by a rocket must not exist, because it must exist?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K