What If You Could Build a Rocket with Infinite Exhaust Speed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter peron
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the hypothetical concept of a rocket with infinite exhaust speed and whether it could generate movement. Participants express confusion over how such a rocket could exert force, noting that the particles ejected would not contribute to momentum change. It is argued that non-physical assumptions lead to meaningless conclusions about propulsion. The concept of light pressure is introduced as a real-world example of momentum change, demonstrating that even light can exert a force, albeit weakly. Ultimately, the idea of a rocket with infinite exhaust speed is deemed impossible and nonsensical.
peron
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
What if you could build a rocket, with the exhaust "leaving" the engine at a instantaneous speed, would such a rocket with a infinite exhaust move?

The particles leaving the engine will reach a different destination as soon as the rocket was switched on, so how could such a rocket exert a force?

I'm kinda confused.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Force is the change of momentum of a body. Presumably in your scenario (which is kind of impossible) the particles leaving the rocket would change the momentum of the rocket and propel it forward. Ultimately what you are describing can't happen and that makes it sort of meaningless. The velocity of the particles would be meaningless and therefore the force they exert would also be meaningless.
 
Non-physical assumptions will lead to nonsensical conclusions.
 
I built an engine that had an exhaust speed of C.
It wouldn't move at all. (turn your flashlight on...)
 
PaulS1950 said:
I built an engine that had an exhaust speed of C.
It wouldn't move at all. (turn your flashlight on...)

There is a well known phenomenon of 'light pressure'. The beam from your torch represents a steady change of momentum - so your torch is a (very feeble) propulsion unit.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top