1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Variable-mass systems

  1. Dec 26, 2011 #1
    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!
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 26, 2011 #2
    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.
  4. Dec 27, 2011 #3

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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: Dec 27, 2011
  5. Dec 27, 2011 #4
    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.
  6. Dec 27, 2011 #5

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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]

    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: Dec 27, 2011
  7. Dec 27, 2011 #6
    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!
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook