|
|
|
"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools." 1921 New York Times editorial opinion about Robert Goddard's revolutionary rocket work. |
|
|
The Times printed
an apology the day after Apollo 11 lifted off for the Moon. "Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century, and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error." |
|
|
A law in science
is a statement of how nature always behaves. |
Always means always. Should we find an
exception to the rule, we do not discount the exception; rather,
we modify, even discard if necessary, the law to take into account
the new knowledge.
We will spend considerable time dealing with how things move
and why they move (or don't move) the way that they do. The first
person to organize this study into a concise package was Isaac
Newton. In 1686 he published Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, commonly known as the Principia,
in which he detailed the rules that govern how things move. The
cornerstone onto which the bulk of classical mechanics is built
is usually cited as Newton's laws of motion, of which there are
three. (Note that the law of universal gravitation is not listed
among this set of three statements.) The reader should note that
the numbering of the three laws is important. All through the
literature, reference is made to a given law by number.
|
Every body continues in its state of
rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it. |
|---|
Isaac Newton was a great assimilator
of ideas, combining his own work with the thoughts of others.
It is this aspect of his work that caused him to make the reference
to giants printed elsewhere on this site; in this case, the giant
to which he is referring is Galileo, who fell upon the first law
while doing inclined plane experiments.
The Greeks had settled on half of the first law by suggesting
that an object will not move if no forces are acting upon it.
But they went on to say that in order to move at all or to continue
moving, a force must be applied continuously. They went to great lengths
to explain how a thrown rock would still be pushed by some agent.
.
Galileo reasoned that a moving object would continue moving unless a force was applied to it. Here is one of those situations in science when a step closer to the truth is taken only when we take current thinking and turn it inside out. He came to this conclusion while analyzing the motion of a ball rolling down an inclined plane. It was a simple enough experiment. He released the ball so that it rolled down the left incline and across the level surface. When it reached an identical incline on the other side, the ball traveled up the plane, stopping at the same level as that from which it was released. As he lowered the angle of the receiving incline, the ball still stopped at the starting height even though it had a greater distance to travel. Galileo suggested that if the receiving plane were not inclined at all, the ball would continue forever trying to reach the original starting height
The first law suggests what happens when the forces acting on a object cancel out, when upward forces negating downward forces, left negating right. If such conditions exist and the object in question is already at rest, then the object will remain at rest. Similarly, if the object is moving with uniform speed in a straight line and the condition of equal forces exists, the object continues to move with uniform speed in a straight line. The first law suggests that nothing about the motion will change if the forces acting on the object add to zero. The object is said to be in equilibrium
A different way to look at the first law is to consider any object at rest or moving with uniform speed in a straight line; such a motion causes us to conclude that Fnet = 0 for that object. On the other hand, should we find a situation where it is speeding up, slowing down or not moving in a straight line, we should conclude that Fnet is not equal to zero and start searching for the cause of the unbalanced force. When viewed in this light, the realization that the moon is not traveling in a straight line path means that some force is acting on it to chance its path just seeems to fit.
The first law is also known as the law of inertia, at Latin word meaning sluggish or unchanging. The term describing the sum of the forces acting on an object is Fnet = S Forces. In the case of the first law Fnet = S Forces = 0.
See an equilibrium problem here.
|
Whenever an object accelerates, the
acceleration is a) directly proportional to the NET force acting on the object; b) pointing in the same direction as the net force;and c) inversely proportional to the mass of the object. |
If the first law describes the situation
where Fnet
= 0, the second law describes what happens when Fnet is not =
0. That is to say, there is acting on the object an unbalanced
force that is left uncanceled by anything else. The second law
suggests that when such a situation exists, the object is question
will accelerate. The acceleration produced this way is directly
proportional to Fnet, in the same direction as Fnet, and inversely proportional
to the mass of the object. The most common way to write the second
law is Fnet
= ma. We can say that if Fnet is not = 0, the object in question will accelerate.
Alternatively, if we see an object accelerating, i.e., speeding
up, slowing down, or changing direction, we can conclude that
there must be some unbalanced force acting on the object and that
the unbalanced force acts in the same direction as the acceleration.
This fact can be useful in finding hidden forces that may act
on objects. You have already spent considerable time dealing with
how things move while working with the previous section on kinematics.
The "a" in those equations comes from Newton's second
law. A word of caution is in order for the reader. Fnet = ma seems
to the simplest equation one could have. You will soon discover
that finding Fnet will sometimes be a challenge.
We need to consider the units we will be using for force. From
F = ma, if mass is measured in kg and acceleration is measured
in m /s2, then the unit for force will be the kg-m/s2.
This quantity is now renamed the Newton and will
be the (nearly) exclusive unit of force used at this site. For
comparison sake, there are about 4.45 N in one pound. What is
left of a quarter pound beef pattie after cooking weighs about
one Newton. What is your weight in Newtons?
|
F = ma raises for the first time the matter of derived units. Certain quantities in physics such as mass, length and time (there are seven kin all) are said to be fundamental and exist by definition. The units used to describe all other quantities are derived units, expressed as combinations of the basic stuff. The unit of mass is most commonly the kilogram (kg), a basic unit; the unit for acceleration is m/s/s, a combination if basic units. F = ma suggests that some word we use
to name force must be equal to the units on the other side, namely,
kg m/s/s. This last collection of syllables is a lot to say and
to write. We rename this assembly of units the Newton, abbreviated
N, capital letter for a proper name. We physicists take care
of our own in a very special way. Daily, uncounted numbers of
people doing science pay tribute to Sir Isaac for his good work
by saying his name |
| Under no circumstance should any student believe that work will be easier because Newton's second law, F = ma, appears to be so simple. On the contrary, you are about to engage in the most difficult topic seen to date. In earlier work in kinematics, all pertinent quantities were related by special equations (see the equations page). Data (sometimes includimg acceleration) were given, and the student had to find the missing quantitiy. No longer will the acceleration be given; instead you will have to analyse the forces to determine Fnet, and from that you find a. Not easy |
|
equal and opposite reaction. |
Newtons third law is the easiest to state
and is the one most easily misunderstood. It suggests that if
object A pushes on B, then B pushes back on A. The forces are
always equal, and always oppositely directed. The misunderstanding
comes from the fact that the equal and opposite forces never cancel
each other out because each acts on a different object. The best
example that comes to mind that crystalizes the problem is that
of the reluctamt horse.
The dialog goes something
like this:
A horse is attached to a wagon. The driver says to the horse "
giddyap". The horse replies as follows:
" I was reading a physics text lasat night and ran across Newton's third law. It says that 'For every action there is an ezual and opposite reaction' Thta means that if I pull on the wagon, the wagon pulls back on me. The forces are equal in magnitude and oppositely directed. They will cancel each other out so why should I try."
We suspect that there may be a flaw in the horse's logic. What's the flaw? See the box below.
The third law is usually applied in the analysis of systems of forces. The word dynamics is defined as the study of the forces acting on objects. The most common forces that we deal with in a high school course are: 1) gravitational force, the attraction that the Earth has for an object because each (the object and the Earth) has a mass; 2) normal force, a force exerted on an object by a surface on which the object is resting; 3) applied forces, a push or pull caused by some agent; and 4) frictional force, a force that tends to oppose motion.
see also
|
|
|
|
Here is a comprehensive history of rocket development |
|
http://www.spaceline.org/rockethistory.html http://www.solarviews.com/eng/rocket.htm http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/special/garland.html |
When a situation exists where F net = 0, we often say that the object is in equilibrium. While equilibrium situations are useful in real life, much of our existence deals with change--change in position and change in velocity--to name two. The web sites that you visit here should give you some idea of how these rules are applied.
| M10 | For more about rocketry, go to |
| http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/TRC/Rockets/rocket_principles.html |
| M11 | For a discussion similar to what appears above, go to |
| http://acept.la.asu.edu/courses/phs110/course_info/class_notes/laws/laws.html | |
| http://www.mcasco.com/p1nlm.html | |
| http://www.mcasco.com/p1anlm.html | |
| http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/how/htm/motion.html | |
| http://library.advanced.org/16600/intermediate/force.shtml | |
|
|
Check out ice hockey a t the exploratorium |
|
|
http://www.exploratorium.edu/hockey |
| Below is a site on the physics of flight | |
| http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/how/htm/how.html#contents |
|
|
For a discussion of implications regarding Newton's third law, go to |
|
|
http://howthingswork.virginia.edu/ramps.html |
| http://howthingswork.virginia.edu/spring_scales.html |
| Click here for the complete mcasco site. | |
| All | |
| http://www.mcasco.com/p1outln.html |
|
The reader can be reasonably assured that one will understand the laws of physics when one can walk though a daily routine and recognize the laws of physics all around. Automobile drivers and passengers are at serious risk of bodily harm if they ignore the consequences of Newton's first law when an accident event presents itself. Consider these negative traffic outcomes that can occur when the user has no passenger restraint system in place. Can you see the first law at work here? Warning: carnage ahead.Ø
The carnage here could have been significantly reduced if the vehicles were equipped with some find of passenger restraint system to prevent automobile passengers from leaving their seats. Restraint systems fall into two general categories: passive restraint and active restraint.
Question: What does one call a person
who ignores all restraint systems? See this page for the legislative history of seat belt. http://www.stnonline.com/stn/occupantrestraint/seatbelthistory |
| The horse's logic is correct as far as it goes. The forces in question are equal in magnitude and are oppositely directed. They do not cancel because they are APPLIED TO DIFFERRENT OBJECTS. The horse pulls one the wagon. The wagon pulls one the horse. The correct reasoning for the horse shuld be. "When you exert a force on the wagon, friction sets up a force on the wagon Those forces are oppositely directed, if the force applied by friction is greater than that applied by the horse, the wagon won't move" |