The Museum of HP Calculators

HP Forum Archive 21

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

OT: Space ship
Message #1 Posted by Michael Eckstein on 4 Apr 2012, 6:53 a.m.

For your amusement in free time I present this simple problem:

Let's assume a space ship with a mass M and zero velocity, which is in free space with no outer gravity field. Then a negligible (for simplicity) amount of fuel with mass m << M was burned and the ship achieved a velocity v. Then a same amount m<<M was burned and thus the ship achieved a velocity approximately 2v.

From the other point of view, with sufficent accuracy we can say that after the first fuel burn the space ship had kinetic energy Mv2/2. After the second fuel burn the ship had kinetic energy 2Mv2.

So the second burn of the fuel added three times more energy, than the first burn. We can thus continue several steps and deduce, that after N-th such step the ship can gain arbitrary big increase in energy with just a very small amount m of fuel.

Hence we have a perpetuum mobile of the first kind ;-)
Where is the flaw in this consideration?

Edited: 4 Apr 2012, 6:59 a.m.

      
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #2 Posted by Harald on 4 Apr 2012, 7:21 a.m.,
in response to message #1 by Michael Eckstein

The flaw would appear to be that you assume the thrust to be invarient of the velocity.

      
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #3 Posted by Luiz C. Vieira (Brazil) on 4 Apr 2012, 7:25 a.m.,
in response to message #1 by Michael Eckstein

To achieve a relatively big increase of kinetic energy (although hypothetical, we are talking about a conservative system, right?) we need infinite 'portions' of m fuel, hence an infinite fuel tank and an infinite time span (you did not consider time in your equations).

Edited: 4 Apr 2012, 7:26 a.m.

      
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #4 Posted by Ed Wright on 4 Apr 2012, 7:34 a.m.,
in response to message #1 by Michael Eckstein

Wouldn't all the fuel have to be on board initially? And would that be an infinite amount of fuel?

            
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #5 Posted by Michael Eckstein on 4 Apr 2012, 7:40 a.m.,
in response to message #4 by Ed Wright

Yes, all fuel is on board intially, and no, there is not an infinite amount of fuel.
The question is how it's possible to gain ever end ever increasing amount in energy burning the same amount of fuel.

Edited: 4 Apr 2012, 7:44 a.m.

                  
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #6 Posted by Marcus von Cube, Germany on 4 Apr 2012, 9:27 a.m.,
in response to message #5 by Michael Eckstein

E=0.5*M*(V0+dV)2 = 0.5*M*(V02+2*V0*dV+dV2) = E0 + M*V0*dV+0.5*M*dV2

Thus dE = M*V0*dV+0.5*M*dV2

The energy is not rising with the square of V0 but with the square of dV and proportional to V0. It still looks a bit tricky to me but not as intimidating as it was.

      
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #7 Posted by bill platt on 4 Apr 2012, 7:50 a.m.,
in response to message #1 by Michael Eckstein

That's obvious. You cant make the speed double just because you want it so. The kinetic energy should simply be equated to the fuel energy.

            
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #8 Posted by Dave Shaffer (Arizona) on 4 Apr 2012, 11:59 a.m.,
in response to message #7 by bill platt

Quote:
Then a same amount m<<M was burned and thus the ship achieved a velocity approximately 2v

Bill's got it right. The assumption behind the quote is WRONG!

      
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #9 Posted by Luiz C. Vieira (Brazil) on 4 Apr 2012, 9:44 a.m.,
in response to message #1 by Michael Eckstein

Is it just an impression of mine or there is a missing post in this thread? I cannot find a post I read some minutes ago...

????

      
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #10 Posted by Michael Eckstein on 4 Apr 2012, 12:07 p.m.,
in response to message #1 by Michael Eckstein

OK, now is the right time for the answer to the problem. Here it is (don't read if you'd like to find the solution yourself):

The only flaw was this statement:

Hence we have a perpetuum mobile of the first kind ;-)

All other statements are correct.

But there is still one unanswered question remaining - how it's possible to gain ever end ever increasing amount in energy burning the same amount of fuel?

            
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #11 Posted by Cristian Arezzini on 4 Apr 2012, 12:11 p.m.,
in response to message #10 by Michael Eckstein

Quote:
how it's possible to gain ever end ever increasing amount in energy burning the same amount of fuel?

Because energy does not go linearly with speed?

            
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #12 Posted by bill platt on 4 Apr 2012, 12:12 p.m.,
in response to message #10 by Michael Eckstein

It isn't possible.

You can't take the infinitesimal and then use it infinitely. Logical fallacy :-)

            
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #13 Posted by Dave Shaffer (Arizona) on 4 Apr 2012, 12:16 p.m.,
in response to message #10 by Michael Eckstein

Let me say again:

this statement is WRONG:

Quote:
Then a same amount m<<M was burned and thus the ship achieved a velocity approximately 2v.

As Bill first pointed out, you have to consider the energy content of m amount of fuel and equate that to the change in kinetic energy of the rocket, which goes as v^2.

                  
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #14 Posted by Marcus von Cube, Germany on 4 Apr 2012, 12:25 p.m.,
in response to message #13 by Dave Shaffer (Arizona)

Are you sure? In the reference system of the space ship after the first burn, it has zero kinetic energy. In other words, setting relativistic effects aside, each burn starts from square one.

                        
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #15 Posted by bill platt on 4 Apr 2012, 12:53 p.m.,
in response to message #14 by Marcus von Cube, Germany

It doesn't matter which reference system. If you change reference systems, you can't "start fresh". If you are in the rocket's reference system, it doesn't absolve you of what Feynman termed "accounting".

                              
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #16 Posted by Marcus von Cube, Germany on 4 Apr 2012, 1:51 p.m.,
in response to message #15 by bill platt

I think the tip with the amount of fuel left in the rocket gaining energy through the speed increase hits the nail on the head. In my opinion it's equivalent to my view of starting fresh with a changed reference system, just a different description of the same effect.

                  
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #17 Posted by Michael Eckstein on 4 Apr 2012, 12:25 p.m.,
in response to message #13 by Dave Shaffer (Arizona)

In fact, after the second burst the velocity would be even (very slightly) greater than 2v, So with sufficent accuracy 2v is valid.

      
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #18 Posted by Jim Horn on 4 Apr 2012, 12:29 p.m.,
in response to message #1 by Michael Eckstein

The flaw is that the first incremental unit of propellant supplies energy to the ship *and all the rest of the fuel*. Successive units of propellant release the energy contained in themselves including the energy given to them by all that was expended earlier. So yes, propellant used at the end of thrusting provides much more energy than propellant used at liftoff.

For small delta propellants, the linear model does indeed apply as proposed but it breaks down as the quantities become non-insignificant.

Reaction dynamics has all sorts of non-intuitive characteristics. Yes, it really *is* rocket science!

            
Re: OT: Space ship
Message #19 Posted by Michael Eckstein on 4 Apr 2012, 12:31 p.m.,
in response to message #18 by Jim Horn

Correct :-)

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall