| Author |
Message |
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 13 May 2008 16:10:50 IST
|
|
|
CONSIDER A ROCKET WHICH IS MOVING AT A CONSTANT SPEED IN SPACE DUE TO BURNING OF FUEL WITHIN IT AND EJECTIN OUT THE BURNT GASES THROUGH A NOZZLE...........
FIRST OF ALL..............IS THIS POSSIBLE........THAT A NET FORCE IS ACTIN ON THE ROCKET WHEN IT IS HAVIN ZERO ACCELERATION??????
IF YES, ACCELERATION SHOULD BE NON-ZERO
IF NO, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE BURNT GASES ARE COMING OUT FROM THE BACK OF THE ROCKET WITHOUT EXERTING ANY FORCE ON IT ?
SO, I CONCLUDE THAT MAYBE THE STATEMENT ITSELF IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT DO U GUYS HAV TO SAY ABOUT IT ???????
|
|
|
|
13 May 2008 18:59:21 IST
|
|
|
maybe the force due to the emission of gas is nullified by the gravitational force(after all it is not specified if there is no gravitational force acting) maybe due to bodies other than earth...
|
we are the allies of konoha.....shinobis of the....sand
shubham sunder |
this reply: 5 points
(with 1 
in 1 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
13 May 2008 19:03:29 IST
|
|
|
It keeps adjusting to have uniform speed at infinitesimally small periods of time. Its like moving ur palm on a wooden block at a constant speed. Thr is frictional force, but still u can roughly, have uniform velocity.
I hope my expln helps u.
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
13 May 2008 19:04:27 IST
|
|
|
The thrust force on the rocket balances the gravitational force exerted by the bodies around it and so it has 0 acceleration
|
Do I NeEd A SiGnAtUrE To PrOvE MySeLF!!! |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
13 May 2008 19:16:58 IST
|
|
|
Boss,,i mean eshaan, in space,, u cant consider gravity, and if u do so,, then according to ur statement u r making net force zero..
And yes,, in space(gravity free),,if gases are burnt then they will eject out to create force on the system(rocket),, and create acceleration,, constant speed itself refers zero acc...
For,, ultimator, the statement given by him,, states the hand to exert the balancing force ,, the force that balances the frictional force and hand moves with nearly const. vel.,,, again net force zero... Otherwise , if u would keep ur hand on table,, it will move without any mechanical work,,hahaha..
Gettin on serious notes,, yes mindfreak is rite... there is no net force that can create zero acc.(in this case)!!
But if machinery is such that it somehow stores burnt gases,, and if certainly burning of gases stop, and certain nozzle is opened,, due to pressure diff., the gases move out.. But still there will be many practical factors to be considered... I hope u got it.. Rate quickly!! Take care..
|
The key of success is not in being Master of all.
But Jack of few!! |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
13 May 2008 19:23:02 IST
|
|
|
Hey riku if u are neglecting gravitational forces in space do tell me how satellites revolve around the planets in space??????!!!!!!???????(What is the cause of centripetal force hha!)
|
Do I NeEd A SiGnAtUrE To PrOvE MySeLF!!! |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
13 May 2008 19:29:40 IST
|
|
|
abe pagal,,, that is in orbits placed in divisions of atmosphere of earth,, like ionosphere or exosphere,, where gravity is considered..
And pls. dont say that atmosphere is in space...
If u r saying so then satellites will be rotating anywhere around the earth...
Whenever one talks of space ,,, its always gravity free..
Its an ideal concept,, like point object...
Still, I knew u will create havoc,, so i wrote that,,"in space,, u cant consider gravity, and if u do so,, then according to ur statement u r making net force zero.... "
Y d hell r u fighting,, u were wrong in 1 sentence,, y arguing on it,,, and if u consider space to be filled of ur gravity,, still ur statement remains wrong,, because ur statement makes net force zero(refer it),, completely against question's statement stating:: "FIRST OF ALL..............IS THIS POSSIBLE........THAT A NET FORCE IS ACTIN ON THE ROCKET WHEN IT IS HAVIN ZERO ACCELERATION??????"
vaise y gettin so much screwed up,, actually Rocket-science is not in IIT syllabus!! Chill.. Dont make me waste ma posts!!
|
The key of success is not in being Master of all.
But Jack of few!! |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
13 May 2008 19:32:53 IST
|
|
|
abey orbits space mein nahin to mere padosi ke paas milte hain???
|
Do I NeEd A SiGnAtUrE To PrOvE MySeLF!!! |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes i agrre. the statement itself is wrong.
when rockets have to move in space with uniform velocity,they switch off their thrusters.
only when they have to accelerate do the use thrusters.
Rate me if ans is satisfying.
|
this reply: 10 points
(with 2
in 2 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
14 May 2008 14:57:26 IST
|
|
|
hey guys......i really feel dat if u consider gravity as a factor in space.......only den d statement makes any damn sense.........or else.....d statement is WRONGGG........
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
14 May 2008 15:01:11 IST
|
|
|
yes the motion is gravity free and considered to be a free fall on earth and earth just curves and edges out.........
|
i am well....and hope u r in the same well.... |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
14 May 2008 15:03:30 IST
|
|
|
praveen is correct yaar...........cheers........
|
i am well....and hope u r in the same well.... |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
|
|
Moderation Team
![[Up]](/templates/default/images/icon_up.gif "[Up]"){kind=icon}
