B I don't get instantaneous impulse

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of instantaneous impulse as presented in a mechanics book. It clarifies that impulse is defined as the change in momentum, applicable to all scenarios, including those with very short force durations. The text emphasizes that even when force and time are unknown, the relationship between impulse and momentum remains valid. The confusion arises from the specific mention of instantaneous impulse, but it is reiterated that this principle holds universally. Understanding this concept is crucial for grasping momentum dynamics in physics.
atharba
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
I was reading this A-level mechanics book by L. Bostock and S. Chandler. The chapter was momentum and in it, there's a section about instantaneous impulse. It says "There are many occasions when a force acts for so short a time that the effect is instantaneous, example a bat striking a ball, in such cases, although the magnitude of the force and the time for which it acts may be unknown, there is, nevertheless, an instantaneous impulse whose value is equal to the change in momentum produced"

But since impulse is equal to "the change in momentum which it produces" then why did the book just specify that in that case the impulse is equal to the change in momentum? Shouldn't this be the case for all impulses and not just the instantaneous ones?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
atharba said:
then why did the book just specify that in that case the impulse is equal to the change in momentum?
It did not, it just said that the impulse is equal to the change in momentum in that case just as in any other case - even if you do not know the force or the time over which the force acts.
 
  • Like
Likes atharba and topsquark
Orodruin said:
It did not, it just said that the impulse is equal to the change in momentum in that case just as in any other case - even if you do not know the force or the time over which the force acts.
Thanks a lot!!
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top