
Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount Administration Split On Europe Invasion Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan Pot, Kettle On Line Two... Allies Seize Paris The Natural Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff A New Beginning My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) Tim Blair James Lileks Bleats Virginia Postrel Kausfiles Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman) Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson) Samizdata Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle) Space Alan Boyle (MSNBC) Space Politics (Jeff Foust) Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey) NASA Watch NASA Space Flight Hobby Space A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold) Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore) Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust) Mars Blog The Flame Trench (Florida Today) Space Cynic Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing) COTS Watch (Michael Mealing) Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington) Selenian Boondocks Tales of the Heliosphere Out Of The Cradle Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar) True Anomaly Kevin Parkin The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster) Spacecraft (Chris Hall) Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher) Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche) Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer) Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers) Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement) Spacearium Saturn Follies JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell) Science
Nanobot (Howard Lovy) Lagniappe (Derek Lowe) Geek Press (Paul Hsieh) Gene Expression Carl Zimmer Redwood Dragon (Dave Trowbridge) Charles Murtaugh Turned Up To Eleven (Paul Orwin) Cowlix (Wes Cowley) Quark Soup (Dave Appell) Economics/Finance
Assymetrical Information (Jane Galt and Mindles H. Dreck) Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen et al) Man Without Qualities (Robert Musil) Knowledge Problem (Lynne Kiesling) Journoblogs The Ombudsgod Cut On The Bias (Susanna Cornett) Joanne Jacobs The Funny Pages
Cox & Forkum Day By Day Iowahawk Happy Fun Pundit Jim Treacher IMAO The Onion Amish Tech Support (Lawrence Simon) Scrapple Face (Scott Ott) Regular Reading
Quasipundit (Adragna & Vehrs) England's Sword (Iain Murray) Daily Pundit (Bill Quick) Pejman Pundit Daimnation! (Damian Penny) Aspara Girl Flit Z+ Blog (Andrew Zolli) Matt Welch Ken Layne The Kolkata Libertarian Midwest Conservative Journal Protein Wisdom (Jeff Goldstein et al) Dean's World (Dean Esmay) YippeeKiYay (Kevin McGehee) Vodka Pundit Richard Bennett Spleenville (Andrea Harris) Random Jottings (John Weidner) Natalie Solent On the Third Hand (Kathy Kinsley, Bellicose Woman) Patrick Ruffini Inappropriate Response (Moira Breen) Jerry Pournelle Other Worthy Weblogs
Ain't No Bad Dude (Brian Linse) Airstrip One A libertarian reads the papers Andrew Olmsted Anna Franco Review Ben Kepple's Daily Rant Bjorn Staerk Bitter Girl Catallaxy Files Dawson.com Dodgeblog Dropscan (Shiloh Bucher) End the War on Freedom Fevered Rants Fredrik Norman Heretical Ideas Ideas etc Insolvent Republic of Blogistan James Reuben Haney Libertarian Rant Matthew Edgar Mind over what matters Muslimpundit Page Fault Interrupt Photodude Privacy Digest Quare Rantburg Recovering Liberal Sand In The Gears(Anthony Woodlief) Sgt. Stryker The Blogs of War The Fly Bottle The Illuminated Donkey Unqualified Offerings What she really thinks Where HipHop & Libertarianism Meet Zem : blog Space Policy Links
Space Future The Space Review The Space Show Space Frontier Foundation Space Policy Digest BBS AWOL
USS Clueless (Steven Den Beste) Media Minder Unremitting Verse (Will Warren) World View (Brink Lindsay) The Last Page More Than Zero (Andrew Hofer) Pathetic Earthlings (Andrew Lloyd) Spaceship Summer (Derek Lyons) The New Space Age (Rob Wilson) Rocketman (Mark Oakley) Mazoo Site designed by Powered by Movable Type 
I Am Quite Disturbed ...at the thought that commenter "Brian" from this post teaches undergraduates. Scroll down a ways, and be amazed. [Update a few minutes later] I should add, that there's another howler there: Regarding Newton's second law of motion, F=ma is just fine for all physics short of things traveling greater than 0.95 the speed of light, or quantum effects. He's apparently confused, thinking that I'm referring to Einstein's Special Relativity version of Newton's Second Law, in which rest mass is converted to true mass via the factor gamma, which is a function of velocity, or F = dp/dt where p = m*v, or in the Einsteinian version, p = gamma*m*v. Gamma is a function of velocity. It's 1/(1v^2/c^2)^1/2 (or in words, it's the inverse of the square root of one minus the ratio of velocity squared over the speed of light squared). For low velocities, it's one divided by the square root of one minus a tiny number, or simply one, so at low velocities, mass equals mass. But for high velocities, you're starting to divide one by a very tiny number (as the difference between 1 and velocity squared over c squared becomes infinitesimal), so gamma blows up to be a huge number. That's why mass approaches infinity as its speed approaches that of light. As I pointed out in the other thread, in the Newtonian case it is simple to take the derivative: F = dp/dt = d(mv)/dt = m*dv/dt + v*dm/dt. But dv/dt is acceleration, so we get: F = ma + v*dm/dt. The Einsteinian case is a much more complicated derivative, because it's a much more complicated function of velocity. But it's not relevant, since we're not talking about nearlight speeds. The fact remains that Newton's Second Law is F = ma + v*dm/dt. The only reason that we always see it as the more simple (and incorrect) F = ma, is that this is a special case in which the mass is constant (the derivative of a constant is zero, and the second term goes away). This is the case for most physics problems, but it certainly isn't for rocketry, in which the vehicle is ejecting mass (that's what makes it go). Anyway, as I said, it's very disturbing that this person is teaching anyone, let alone undergrads. [Update at noon Eastern] Professor Hall, who does teach undergrads as well as grads (and I'm glad of it), expands on his comment via email: I think Brian's a bit of a putz in his comments. However, he's right about F=ma and F=dp/dt. Derivation of the rocket equation is a little tricky to work out, as you say. However, the chain rule does not lead to the correct equation. I'll just add that a) I'm glad that at least some of my readers and commenters are smarter than me and b) while I didn't say that the chain rule led to the rocket equation, I did imply it, and that was a mistake, and c) I had known that at one time, but it's been a long time. And we are in agreement that Brian is a putz. Posted by Rand Simberg at July 09, 2004 06:58 AMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/mtdiagnostics.cgi/2630 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference this post from Transterrestrial Musings.
A Favorite Topic
Excerpt: Aerodynamics. I know everybody loves the subject. OK, it put food on my table for a long time and I have to admit that after a few years away I grow nostalgic. I came across a a post that was... Weblog: Funmurphys: the Blog Tracked: July 13, 2004 06:54 PM
Comments
in the Newtonian case it is simple to take the derivative: F = dp/dt = d(mv)/dt = m*dv/dt + v*dm/dt. But dv/dt is acceleration, so we get: F = ma + v*dm/dt. Actually, Newton's second law, F=dp/dt, only applies to a point mass particle with constant mass. The chain rule applied here appears, erroneously, in Bate, Mueller and White. It may also appear in other sources. I have seen it used with the handwaving trick of saying that the v multiplying dm/dt must have to do with the dm/dt, so it must be the exhaust velocity, and magically, that gives the equation for thrust due to a rocket engine with given exhaust velocity and mass flow rate. However, the flaw in that statement is that the v in the chain rule is clearly the velocity appearing in the vehicle momentum. The correct application of Newton's 2nd law to a variable mass system is a bit more complicated, requiring the use of a control volume to account for the mass flow. See, for example, Hill and Peterson. Posted by chris at July 9, 2004 08:20 AMRight you are, Chris. That's one more layer of complexity to the issue. The fact remains, though, that F = ma does not ineluctably lead to the conclusion that all supersonic flow creates shock waves... Posted by Rand Simberg at July 9, 2004 08:37 AMThe way I first was taught was as follows... Consider the rocket at rest in vacuum, far from any other object. The total momentum is zero. Once the rocket begins firing, for a rocket of constant exhaust velocity, you can bookkeep the total momentum in the initial instant (making the usual physicist type approximation that the ship greatly outmasses the parcel of exhaust)  Mship*Vship  Me*Ve. Because the momentum is conserved, d(Ptotal)/dt = 0. In the initial instants, the mass of the ship is approximately constant, so this results in the usual Mship d(Vship)/dt = Ve * d Me/dt. I know, in rigorous terms, the approximations made sorta shortcut Chris' more complete derivation, but it served the purpose of getting us students past the hurdle of thinking that rocket science was, well, rocket science. Kind of like dipping a toe in the water slowly. The more complete version could then follow. BTW, why is everyone so surprised about the whole idea of shockless (or as a practical engineering matter, more likely greatly reduced shock) supersonic travel? It's been known for something like 50 years that reshaping a fighter's fuselage to have a narrowed 'waist' would reduce drag and improve transonic performance, so why should shaping an aircraft to improve things be such a surprise? (I always figured that the one that would be tough to conquer would be the detachment shocks, rather than the leading edge shock.)  Eric. Posted by Eric Strobel at July 9, 2004 09:08 PMEric: I hate to break this to you, but area Then again, who really knows. He still has not Everyone should read Anderson's "Modern I have not gone to the comments section of the that last post was mine. Posted by greg at July 9, 2004 11:27 PMRand: so I went to the previous post comments "The answer is nowhere, Greg. They are not for Do you have aluminum foil in your baseball cap Eric: I hate to break this to you, but arearuling does not result in shockfree supersonic flight as our friend Rand "might" be claiming. Im not really sure what he's claiming since he's resorting to name calling. Class. I am not claiming that. If you'd read the original piece, you'd realize that I was in fact claiming that it's not a solution at all, and is being overhyped. It's OK for Brian to call me a "science lightweight", and to talk about "math that I couldn't possibly understand," when he obviously knows nothing about me, but not for me to agree with Professor Hall's characterization of him as a result of that? Posted by Rand Simberg at July 10, 2004 07:20 AMDo you have aluminum foil in your baseball cap to keep the mind control waves out? Why no, not at all. Why do you ask? It certainly wouldn't seem to follow from your quote. Are you claiming that there is no military ordnance that is unavailable, over the counter, to the general public? Or is it your claim that everything that is theoretically possible is put into military production? Just what is your point? Posted by Rand Simberg at July 10, 2004 07:23 AMGreg, Fer crying out loud, read the actual words I posted. I never asserted that arearuling results in shockfree supersonic flight. The point was that body shaping (and by implication other seemingly unconventional approaches) can result in unexpected (at least at the time) improvements of aero characteristics. I therefore find the whole idea of nearly shockfree supersonic flight to be totally unsurprising. BTW, most texts' discussion of shocks seemed (to me) to follow a certain circular logic. Given the (oft unstated) assumption that certain conditions *result* in a shock, the text sets out to mathematically describe the situation. All Rand is doing (I think) is pointing out that the above starting assumption ain't necessarily so.  Eric. Posted by Eric Strobel at July 14, 2004 07:40 PMPost a comment 