Variable-Mass Systems: Newton's 2nd Law

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Undoubtedly0
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Systems
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the application of Newton's second law to variable-mass systems, particularly in the context of rocket propulsion. Participants explore the implications of mass changing over time and how this affects the formulation of the law, including the correct treatment of forces and momentum in such systems.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the equation for Newton's second law in variable-mass systems and questions the validity of a common interpretation that leads to a different formulation involving the velocity of the mass being added or removed.
  • Another participant suggests that a negative sign might be absorbed into the velocity or the rate of mass change, particularly in the context of a rocket losing mass.
  • A different viewpoint highlights the frame dependency of using force as defined by the rate of change of momentum, suggesting that using the traditional form of Newton's second law introduces complications with conservation laws.
  • One participant raises questions about the treatment of velocities in the derivation of the equations, specifically regarding the relative velocities of the ejected mass and the main body of the rocket.
  • Another participant discusses the common practice of simplifying the velocity treatment in one-dimensional problems and the implications of treating velocities as scalars versus vectors.
  • Concerns are expressed about the ambiguity in the treatment of projectile velocities and the reliability of specifications in literature regarding variable-mass systems.
  • A participant questions the correctness of a derivation that leads to a specific formulation of momentum, indicating potential issues in the reasoning or assumptions made in the derivation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct formulation of Newton's second law for variable-mass systems, with no consensus reached on the validity of specific derivations or interpretations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of different approaches and the treatment of velocities.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential ambiguities in the definitions of velocities and the treatment of mass ejection in variable-mass systems. There are unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions that may affect the conclusions drawn from the discussions.

Undoubtedly0
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Newton's second law gives that

[tex]\sum\mathbf{F} = \frac{d\mathbf{p}}{dt} = \frac{d(m\mathbf{v})}{dt}[/tex]

In a system where mass varies with time, m(t), one would simply think that this would lead to

[tex]\sum\mathbf{F} = m\frac{d\mathbf{v}}{dt} + \mathbf{v}\frac{dm}{dt}[/tex]

Yet everywhere online I see that this is not the case, (especially here, page 228) says that this is not the case. In fact, it is said that

[tex]\sum\mathbf F + \mathbf{u} \frac{\mathrm{d} m}{\mathrm{d}t} = m {\mathrm{d} \mathbf v \over \mathrm{d}t}[/tex]

where [itex]\mathbf{u}[/itex] is the velocity of dm, the mass entering or leaving the main body. What then is wrong with [itex]\sum\mathbf{F} = m\frac{d\mathbf{v}}{dt} + \mathbf{v}\frac{dm}{dt}[/itex]?

Happy holidays!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I took a quick look at the book, and my immediate guess is that they have absorbed a negative sign into either the velocity or the dm/dt. In the case of a rocket, for example, dm/dt is negative, because mass is leaving the rocket and thus the mass of the rocket is decreasing. Also be careful with the velocities of the rocket and propellant. Draw out a simple force diagram with a rocket and its propellant.
 
You won't see F=dp/dt in Newton's Principia. You won't see F=ma, either. Newton's Principia is pretty much calculus free.

There's a big problem with using ƩF=dp/dt as the definition of force. This makes force a frame dependent quantity for variable mass systems. This problem vanishes if one uses ƩF=ma. This introduces a new problem. Now the connection with the conservation laws is broken. There are two ways around this. One is to rewrite Newton's second law as ƩFext+u*dm/dt=ma. Another is to define thrust (u*dm/dt) as one of the external forces acting on the system, from which one gets ƩF=ma once again.

One last way around this problem is to use an inertial frame that is instantaneously co-moving with the center of mass of the variable mass system. This makes the v*dm/dt term that arises in ƩF=dp/dt vanish. In this frame, ƩF=dp/dt is equivalent to ƩF=ma, but the connection with the conservation laws is clearly maintained if one uses ƩF=dp/dt.
 
Last edited:
Thanks DH. Just a couple of questions. First of all, what do you mean by the conservation laws, and how does this relate to the form of Newton's second law?

Also, I noticed that in many derivations of [itex]\sum\mathbf F + \mathbf{u} \frac{\mathrm{d} m}{\mathrm{d}t} = m {\mathrm{d} \mathbf v \over \mathrm{d}t}[/itex] the author suddenly says that the ejected mass has velocity [itex]\mathbf{v} + d\mathbf{v} - \mathbf{u}[/itex] relative to the ground. However, if the ejected mass is launched with a relative velocity [itex]\mathbf{u}[/itex] to the main body, then is not its velocity relative to the ground simply [itex]\mathbf{v} + d\mathbf{v} + \mathbf{u}[/itex]? See here for example.
 
You'll see people using v-u as opposed to v+u when they reduce the rocket problem to a 1D problem and treat velocity as a scalar as opposed to a vector. Let v is the velocity of the rocket with respect to the ground, positive upward, and u be the speed (positive) at which the exhaust leaves the rocket relative to the rocket. This means the velocity of the exhaust relative to ground is v-u. Treating everything as a vector leads to v+u.

Regarding the v+u versus v+dv+u imbroglio, that's a silly argument based on a typical physicist abuse of mathematics. If you want to be pedantically correct, the momentum of the exhaust cloud is given by the integral
[tex]\mathbf p_e(t) = \int_{t_0}^t \dot m_e(\tau)(\mathbf v_r(\tau)+\mathbf u(\tau))\,d\tau[/tex]
Differentiating with respect to time via the Leibniz integral rule yields
[tex]\dot{\mathbf p}_e(t) = \dot m_e(t)(\mathbf v_r(t)+\mathbf u(t))[/tex]Edit
One last point with regard to the article cited in post #4. Regardless of the author's opinion, there is an ambiguity with regard to the projectile velocity. Someone buying such a system had better read the specs and read how the spec values were tested. Those specs and the test reports are inevitably classified. A university professor without proper clearance knows naught of the topic on which he is writing.
 
Last edited:
Interesting! Yet I noticed that the derivation using F = dp/dt only works using v-u. How then does one obtain [itex]\sum\mathbf F + \mathbf{u} \frac{\mathrm{d} m}{\mathrm{d}t} = m {\mathrm{d} \mathbf v \over \mathrm{d}t}[/itex]? My thought would be to proceed exactly as was done here, yet it seems that they reached the same (incorrect) result as I did in my first post. Are they wrong in saying that

[tex]\mathbf{p}_{\mathrm{initial}} = M\mathbf{v}[/tex]

[tex]\mathbf{p}_{\mathrm{final}} = (M - dm)(\mathbf{v} + d\mathbf{v}) + dm(\mathbf{v} + d\mathbf{v} + \mathbf{u})[/tex]

or is their problem elsewhere? Thanks again DH!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K