Conservation of momentum — Water dropped from a firefighting airplane

In summary: I could answer that. But if someone asked "what is the average force on the plane over a particular...time", I could not answer that without knowing the mass and acceleration at each time step. That is why ##\dot p=m\dot v+\dot mv## is not really valid.
  • #1
Amik
38
3
Homework Statement
It is in the attempt section
Relevant Equations
.
485716002214322019.jpg
565655780383607873.jpg

I could not unserstand part d.Does problem ask about plane's speed immediately after it starts to drop water or after the water is dropped completely?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I believe it means after all of the water has left the plane.
 
  • #3
Can you explain the answer?
 
  • #4
Hmm ... in the first image you posted you have a set of questions. The second image appears to be from some solution key and each solution includes the answer and an explanation. The explanation for part D seems pretty thorough to me. I’m not sure I could improve upon it.

Perhaps you could tell me what about the explanation seems wrong or confusing?
 
  • #5
I just can not understand why velocity does not change.
 
  • #6
let me think about where i think It is wrong
 
  • #7
Amik said:
I just can not understand why velocity does not change.

It takes a force on the plane to change the velocity of the plane.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Suppose you are traveling at a constant speed with a ball in your hand. At some point you open your hand. You don’t put any force on the ball just opening your hand. You don’t accelerate the ball and the ball doesn’t accelerate you. If it weren’t for gravity and wind resistance the ball would continue traveling with you at zero relative speed as if you were still holding it.
 
  • #9
But vertical velocity increases?
 
  • #10
I do not mean to derail the discussion, but it seems to me that the answer provided in (b) is flawed which makes the answer in (c) also flawed. Here is why. The plane's mass increases over a 12 s interval, not instantaneously. If we assume that the mass increases linearly over the 12 s interval, we have ##m(t)=m_0+\mu t## where ##\mu=(6000/12) ~\mathrm{kg\cdot s^{-1}}##. Then one needs to solve Newton's second Law $$\frac{dp}{dt}=m(t)\frac{dv}{dt}+v(t)\frac{dm}{dt}=0$$to find ##v(t)##, then obtain ##a(t)## by differentiation and finally the average force (over time) from $$\langle F \rangle_T =\dfrac{{\int_0^{T}m(t)a(t)~dt}}{{\int_0^Tdt}}$$where ##T=12~\mathrm{s}##. This method gives the same answer ##v(12~\mathrm{s})=24~ \mathrm{m/s}## as it should for this "inelastic collision" but a larger value for the average force, also as it should. Perhaps this treatment is beyond OP's level in which case I apologize for the interjection.
 
  • #11
The knowledge I learned is not enough for me to understand your solution.Most likely you are right.However, this is a AP physics 1 problem
 
  • Like
Likes kuruman
  • #12
Thanks for the clarification. Just so that you understand the the solution given to you is an approximation.
 
  • #13
kuruman said:
I do not mean to derail the discussion, but it seems to me that the answer provided in (b) is flawed which makes the answer in (c) also flawed. Here is why. The plane's mass increases over a 12 s interval, not instantaneously. If we assume that the mass increases linearly over the 12 s interval, we have ##m(t)=m_0+\mu t## where ##\mu=(6000/12) ~\mathrm{kg\cdot s^{-1}}##. Then one needs to solve Newton's second Law $$\frac{dp}{dt}=m(t)\frac{dv}{dt}+v(t)\frac{dm}{dt}=0$$to find ##v(t)##, then obtain ##a(t)## by differentiation and finally the average force (over time) from $$\langle F \rangle_T =\dfrac{{\int_0^{T}m(t)a(t)~dt}}{{\int_0^Tdt}}$$where ##T=12~\mathrm{s}##. This method gives the same answer ##v(12~\mathrm{s})=24~ \mathrm{m/s}## as it should for this "inelastic collision" but a larger value for the average force, also as it should. Perhaps this treatment is beyond OP's level in which case I apologize for the interjection.
##\dot p=m\dot v+\dot mv## is popular but not really valid. That equation would only make sense if a force acting on an object could change its mass. Note that applied to the later part of the question, where it drops the water, it yields the wrong result. It only works for the first part because the water being scooped has no momentum of its own.

I do not understand your objection to ##F_{avg}=\frac{\Delta p}{\Delta t}## for finding the average force exerted on the plane. Your method seems to be answering a different question, the average force exerted by water being scooped up on the plane+water already scooped.
 
  • #14
haruspex said:
##\dot p=m\dot v+\dot mv## is popular but not really valid.
Can you explain why not? We have a plane + some water of total mass ##m## moving with speed ##v##. At time ##\Delta t## later the mass is ##m+\Delta m## and the speed ##v+\Delta v##. Momentum conservation requires that ##mv=(m+\Delta m)(v+\Delta v)## which, to first order, becomes ##0=m \Delta v+v \Delta m##. Is this not equivalent to ##\dot p=m\dot v+\dot mv## in the limit ##\Delta t \rightarrow 0##?
haruspex said:
Your method seems to be answering a different question, the average force exerted by water being scooped up on the plane+water already scooped.
Perhaps. I imagined myself on this plane with instruments that independently record the acceleration and the mass of the plane at regular time intervals. If someone asked me "what is the force on the plane at any given time?", I would say "the product of the two measurements." The time-averaged product would be the average force. Since water is the only entity exerting a force on the plane, this would be the "average force of the water on the plane" that the problem asks for. However, considering OP's post #11, the intended calculation of the average force is a simplification of this.
 
  • #15
kuruman said:
Can you explain why not? We have a plane + some water of total mass ##m## moving with speed ##v##. At time ##\Delta t## later the mass is ##m+\Delta m## and the speed ##v+\Delta v##. Momentum conservation requires that ##mv=(m+\Delta m)(v+\Delta v)##

Conservation of momentum only applies if you account for all the mass before and afterwards. In your equation you have ##\Delta m## appearing on the RHS (final momentum). But, there is no term on the LHS for the initial mometum of the ##\Delta m##.

If an object "gains mass", then it will speed up or slow down depending on the collision with the additional mass.

Likewise, if an object loses mass, then it may speed up (if it fires the mass in one direction), slow down (if it fires the mass in another direction) or remain at constant velocity (if it simply releases the mass).
 
  • #16
PeroK said:
Conservation of momentum only applies if you account for all the mass before and afterwards. In your equation you have ##\Delta m## appearing on the RHS (final momentum). But, there is no term on the LHS for the initial mometum of the ##\Delta m##.
I agree. Perhaps I was not clear about ##\Delta m##. It is the mass of the water that is scooped up in time ##\Delta t##. It is assumed to have zero velocity before being scooped up. If it were to be formally included in the LHS side, the equation would be ##mv+\Delta m*0=(m+\Delta m)(v+\Delta v)##.
 
  • #17
kuruman said:
It is the mass of the water that is scooped up in time Δt. It is assumed to have zero velocity before being scooped up.
Yes, that is the flaw in the equation.
It has the look of some nice general law, but if we define p(t) as the momentum of the plane plus the water it is carrying at whatever instant then dp/dt only represents the net force acting on it if the incoming mass brings no momentum with it.
 
  • #18
kuruman said:
the average force is a simplification of this.
No, it is not a simplification. It answers the question intended, the average force acting on the plane, as an entity distinct from its cargo. (Since when is ##\frac{\Delta p}{\Delta t}## not the definition of average force on an object, objects being of fixed mass?)
 
  • Like
Likes hutchphd
  • #19
haruspex said:
No, it is not a simplification. It answers the question intended, the average force acting on the plane, as an entity distinct from its cargo. (Since when is ##\frac{\Delta p}{\Delta t}## not the definition of average force on an object, objects being of fixed mass?)
Yes I see that now. I still don't see why ##\dot mv+m\dot v=0## is invalid. Here is a derivation that sets ##\dot P(t)=0## aside. Let
##M_0## = mass of empty plane; ##m_0## = total mass of water that is scooped up.
Consider splitting ##m_0## into ##N## discrete pieces each of mass ##m_0/N##. Let
##v_k## = velocity of the airplane plus water after scoop of the ##k##th piece. We write the momentum conservation equation for each scoop
##M_0 v_0=\left(M_0 + \dfrac{1*m_0}{N}\right)v_1##
##\left(M_0 + \dfrac{1*m_0}{N}\right)v_1=\left(M_0 + \dfrac{2*m_0}{N}\right)v_2##
##\left(M_0 + \dfrac{2*m_0}{N}\right)v_2=\left(M_0 + \dfrac{3*m_0}{N}\right)v_3##
##\dots \dots \dots##
##\left((M_0 + \dfrac{(k-1)*m_0}{N}\right)v_{k-1}=\left(M_0 + \dfrac{k*m_0}{N}\right)v_k##
##\left(M_0 + \dfrac{k*m_0}{N}\right)v_k=\left(M_0 + \dfrac{(k+1)*m_0}{N}\right)v_{k+1}##
##\dots \dots \dots##
##\left(M_0 + \dfrac{(N-1)*m_0}{N}\right)v_{N-1}=\left(M_0 + \dfrac{N*m_0}{N}\right)v_N##
It is immediately obvious that if all the equations are added together, we end up with
##M_0v_0=(M_0+m_0)v_N## as expected. By adding up to each of the two intermediate equations betwen the dots, It should also be obvious that
##M_0v_0=\left(M_0 + \dfrac{k*m_0}{N}\right)v_k##
##M_0v_0=\left(M_0 + \dfrac{(k+1)*m_0}{N}\right)v_{k+1}=\left(M_0 + \dfrac{k*m_0}{N}\right)v_k##
Rearranging the last equation,
##M_0(v_{k+1}-v_k)+\dfrac{m_0}{N}[(k+1)v_{k+1}-k v_k]=0##
Now define ##(\Delta v)_k \equiv v_{k+1}-v_{k}## as the increment required to change the velocity from ##v_k## to ##v_{k+1}## and then substitute ##v_k=v_{k+1}-(\Delta v)_k ## into the last term on the LHS.
##M_0(v_{k+1}-v_k)+\dfrac{m_0}{N}[(k+1)v_{k+1}-k (v_{k+1}-(\Delta v)_k)]=0##
which becomes
$$\left[M_0+\dfrac{k*m_0}{N}\right](\Delta v)_k +\dfrac{m_0}{N}v_{k+1}=0$$
The mass of the plane plus the mass of the scooped water after the ##k##th scoop is, ##M_{k}=M_0+\dfrac{k*m_0}{N}##. The first term on the LHS is the momentum change over the ##(k+1)##th scoop of the plane plus the water inside it. The second term on the LHS side can be viewed as the momentum change over the ##(k+1)##th scoop of the water that is not in the plane. Momentum conservation requires that the two changes add to zero. In other words the plane + water of mass ##M_k## has its speed reduced from ##v_k## to ##v_{k+1}## while the water that is scooped up has its speed increased from zero to ##v_k##. Now we can write the change in mass of plane plus water as ##(\Delta M)_k=m_0/N##. With this, the momentum conservation equation becomes
##M_k(\Delta v)_k +v_{k+1}(\Delta M)_k=0##.
As ##N \rightarrow \infty##, it becomes ##Mdv+vdM=0## which is implied in ##\dot Mv+M\dot v=0##.

If I did or assumed something incorrectly, please let me point it out because I cannot see what or where it is.

Happy New Year y'all.
 
  • #20
kuruman said:
Yes I see that now. I still don't see why ##\dot mv+m\dot v=0## is invalid.
It is true from first principles that ##\dot p=m\dot v+\dot mv##, but we need to be clear what p is the momentum of. If it is the momentum of plane+current cargo then m varies, but we cannot blithely apply conservation of momentum to something which is gaining mass from or losing mass to the outside. That mass transfer might very well involve momentum transfer too. When the plane scoops the water there is no such incoming momentum, but when it drops the water momentum is lost with it.
 
  • #21
haruspex said:
It is true from first principles that ˙p=m˙v+˙mv\dot p=m\dot v+\dot mv, but we need to be clear what p is the momentum of.
Yes! We are in complete agreement here. Unambiguously identifying the system, its components and its boundary are absolutely important. Going back to my posts on this thread, I see that I omitted identifying the system. Belatedly, the system here is the empty plane plus the 6000 kg that will eventually end in its tank at t = 12 s. The momentum of this particular system is conserved from t = 0 to t = 12 s, but not from t = 12 s to t = 14 s if the plane's pilot decides to scoop water for an additional 2 s.
 
  • #22
kuruman said:
Belatedly, the system here is the empty plane plus the 6000 kg that will eventually end in its tank at t = 12 s.
So for that period ##\dot m=0##, yes? And we cannot say what ##\dot v## is because different parts of m have different velocities.
 
  • #23
haruspex said:
So for that period ##\dot m=0##, yes? And we cannot say what ##\dot v## is because different parts of m have different velocities.
Yes to both statements. The way to do it is to define as the system the plane and what's in it and have an external force ##F=\text{-}v\frac{dm_{water}}{dt}## act on it.
 

Related to Conservation of momentum — Water dropped from a firefighting airplane

1. What is conservation of momentum?

Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law of physics that states that the total momentum of a closed system remains constant. This means that the total amount of movement, or momentum, in a system before and after an action or event will be the same.

2. How does conservation of momentum apply to water dropped from a firefighting airplane?

In the case of water dropped from a firefighting airplane, conservation of momentum applies because the water is being released from the airplane at a certain velocity and then falls towards the ground. This action does not change the total momentum of the system, as the momentum of the water is transferred from the airplane to the water droplets.

3. Why is conservation of momentum important in firefighting?

Conservation of momentum is important in firefighting because it helps to ensure that water dropped from a firefighting airplane reaches its intended target with enough force to extinguish the fire. Without this principle, the water could lose momentum and potentially be blown off course by the wind or other external forces.

4. What factors can affect the conservation of momentum in water dropped from a firefighting airplane?

The conservation of momentum in water dropped from a firefighting airplane can be affected by various factors, such as the size and shape of the water droplets, the velocity at which they are released, and external forces like wind or air resistance. The design and condition of the airplane can also play a role in the conservation of momentum.

5. How is conservation of momentum related to other laws of physics in firefighting?

Conservation of momentum is closely related to other laws of physics in firefighting, such as Newton's laws of motion and the principle of energy conservation. These laws all work together to ensure that the water being dropped from the airplane effectively and efficiently puts out the fire. Conservation of momentum also plays a role in the trajectory and impact of other firefighting tools, such as hoses and nozzles.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
825
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
352
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
129
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
23
Views
949
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
146
Back
Top