The Centre of mass of an exploding projectile

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the behavior of the center of mass of an exploding projectile. It is established that the center of mass follows a parabolic path, similar to that of the intact projectile. The introduction of broken masses with vertical velocity components does not alter this trajectory. Participants emphasize that all fragments must eventually have a vertical component as they fall. The consensus is that the center of mass's path remains unchanged despite the explosion.
JesselJoe
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I know that the centre of mass moves in the path (the parabola) that the intact projectile would have followed but does the answer change if the new (broken) masses also have a vertical component of velocity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
JesselJoe said:
I know that the centre of mass moves in the path (the parabola) that the intact projectile would have followed but does the answer change if the new (broken) masses also have a vertical component of velocity?
If ? How could they NOT have a vertical component? What does a parabola look like? Do you think that something traveling in a parabola has no vertical component?
 
  • Like
Likes beamie564
JesselJoe said:
does the answer change if the new (broken) masses also have a vertical component of velocity?
That shouldn't change the answer. If you think about it, the new masses must have a vertical component of velocity at some time ( since they have to fall down).
EDIT: I see your question had already been answered by phinds !
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

B The physics of flywheel launchers (like tennis ball shooters)
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
Complex motion equation (projectile with changing mass and thrust)
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Optimizing Drumstick Bounce: Finding the Magic Fulcrum Point
Replies
31
Views
2K
Proportionality theorem and projectile motion
Replies
8
Views
1K
How can I determine the parabola of a projectile?
Replies
14
Views
1K
Projectile Motion with a backwards Rotation/Tumble
Replies
16
Views
2K
Projectile Intercept Math & Trigonometry
Replies
4
Views
2K
B Questions about momentum and force as well as normal force/friction
Replies
35
Views
4K
I Earth's angular velocity when axis is aligned with apparent gravity
Replies
1
Views
1K
Is my equation for projectile trajectory accurate?
Replies
7
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top