Rayleigh method Dimensional Analysis

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the application of the Rayleigh method for dimensional analysis, specifically addressing an issue where the expected result appears as its inverse. The user attempts to derive the relationship involving density, radius, energy, and time, ultimately arriving at an expression for gamma. Clarification is provided that the constant 'c' does not need to equal -1, which leads to the correct formulation of gamma. The conclusion emphasizes that the user has demonstrated the relationship correctly, aligning with the required expression. Understanding the role of the constant 'c' resolves the confusion regarding the expected outcome.
williamcarter
Messages
153
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


rayleigh.JPG


ii)Rayleigh method gives me inverse of expected result.Would really appreciate your help.

Homework Equations


show that ##f(gamma)##=##(\frac {ro*R^5} {E*t^2})##
where ro=density
R=radius
E=energy

The Attempt at a Solution


We will do dimensional analysis on the elements ro,R,E
ro=kg/m^3=M*L-3
R=m=L
E=J=N*m=##\frac {kg*m} {s^2}*m##=M*L2*T-2

Now we say that gamma=C*roa*Rb*Ec*td (eq1)
where C=constant, a,b,c,d=yet other constants
Now we do dimensional analysis on eq(1)
M0*L0*T0=C*(M*L-3)a*(L)b*(M*L2*T-2)c*(T)d
now M:0=a+c =>a= -c
L:0=-3a+b+2c =>b= -5c
T:0= -2c+d =>d=2c
c=c
We wrote everything in terms of constant c.
Now we substitute back those constant in eq(q)
=>gamma=ro-c*R-5c*Ec*t2c

We rearrange => ##gamma##=##(\frac {E*t^2} {ro*R^5})##c

I would really appreciate it if you could tell me what exactly I did wrong because it seems I get 1/expected result.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Who says it's 1/expected result?
 
  • Like
Likes williamcarter
Chestermiller said:
Who says it's 1/expected result?
Thank you for your prompt answer.
Well if c= -1 then I would get ##gamma##=##(\frac {ro*R^5} {E*t^2})## which they asked me to show.
 
c doesn't have to be -1. You showed that ##\left(\frac {Et^2} {\rho R^5}\right)^c=g(\gamma)##, not necessarily ##\gamma##. So, $$\frac{\rho R^5}{Et^2}=[g(\gamma )]^{-1/c}=f(\gamma )$$which is all you were asked to show.
 
  • Like
Likes williamcarter
Chestermiller said:
c doesn't have to be -1. You showed that ##\left(\frac {Et^2} {\rho R^5}\right)^c=g(\gamma)##, not necessarily ##\gamma##. So, $$\frac{\rho R^5}{Et^2}=[g(\gamma )]^{-1/c}=f(\gamma )$$which is all you were asked to show.
Thank you, now is clear
 

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
972
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K