Why Use Time Derivative Outside the Integral in the Continuity Equation?

AI Thread Summary
The continuity equation is expressed as the time derivative of the integral of density over a fixed volume to accurately reflect how mass changes over time. This approach emphasizes the total mass within the volume and its temporal change, while the alternative formulation focuses on local density changes without accounting for volume variations. The first integral captures both mass changes due to density and any changes in the volume itself. In contrast, the second integral could lead to incorrect conclusions by neglecting the effects of a time-dependent volume. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for accurate fluid dynamics and energy balance calculations.
member 428835
Hi PF!

Can someone help me understand why, when writing the continuity equation we write: $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \iiint_v \rho \, dv$$ instead of $$ \iiint_v \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho \, dv$$

I understand the two are not necessarily the same, but why derive it the first way rather than the second?

Intuitively, the first seems to be saying "add up all the mass and then see how it changes in time" where as the second seems to say "see how density changes in time at each location and then add it all up".

I'm just having trouble understanding the second integral.

Thanks!

Josh
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you keep your volume fixed, the two are equivalent. This is usually how you will see the continuity equation on differential form derived.
 
Yea, The same with energy and fluid balances. But I don't know what the second integral means, or rather why it's technically incorrect, from an intuitive perspective (mathematically I realize you need to use Leibniz' rule if the boundaries are time-dependent and you want to interchange the derivative and integral)

Any help on this is greatly appreciated.
 
Well, "technically correct" depends on what you actually want to compute. Assuming that the volume is time dependent (since in the case where it is not the integrals are equivalent). The first integral gives you the change in the mass within a the volume by computing the mass as a function of time and then differentiating it. The second one only gives you the change of mass in the volume due to changes in the density and therefore neglects any contribution coming from the volume growing or shrinking (or moving!). As an example, consider a medium of constant density ##\rho##. The mass within the volume ##V(t)## will be given by ##M(t) = \rho V(t)## and so ##\dot M = \rho \dot V##. If you compute the density derivative ##\dot \rho##, you will get zero because you are neglecting the fact that the volume might change and therefore engulf more or less mass.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top