Register to reply

Find the minimum separation between 2 pucks

by Helios12
Tags: minimum, pucks, separation
Share this thread:
Helios12
#1
Feb22-12, 11:39 AM
P: 1
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

Two frictionless pucks are placed on a level surface with an initial distance of 20m. Puck 1 has a mass of 0.8 kg and a charge of + 3x10^-4 C while puck 2 has a mass of 0.4 kg and a charge of +3 x10^-4 C. The initial velocity of puck 1 is 12 m/s [E] and the initial velocity of puck 2 is 8 m/s [W]. Find the minimum separation of the two pucks (the minimum distance between the two pucks).


3. The attempt at a solution

This is my attempt at a solution

I first used the law of conservation of momentum to find the velocity of each mass at minimum separtion. The 2 masses have the same velocity at this point.

Note: [east] is positive

Pt=Pt'
m1v1+m2(-v2)=(m1+m2)v'

isolating for v'

v'=(0.80)(12)+(0.40)(-8)/0.80+0.40
v'=5.33 m/s [east]

Next i used the law of conservation of energy:

Ek=kinetic energy
Ee=electric potential energy

Ek1+Ek2=Ee+Ek'
1/2m1v1^2 + 1/2m2(-v2^2) = kq^2/r + 1/2(m1+m2)(v')^2

inserting each value

1/2(0.80)(12)^2 + 1/2(0.40)(-8)^2 = (9.0X10^9)(+3.0X10^-4)^2/r + 1/2(0.80+0.40)(5.33)^2

isolating for r (the distance) I get:

r=15.2 m

so the minimum distance between the 2 pucks is 15.2 m

Is this correct? I am not feeling too confident with my answer of 15.2 m it just seems too big a separation. If i made a mistake or forgot to include something or included something i shouldn't have. please let me know. Also I am not sure if i am correct in assuming that there is no electric potential energy when the pucks are 20 m apart. It seems that they are too far apart to have any electric potential energy between them. Can someone confirm this with me also?

It took me some time to write this up so can someone please look over my answer and the questions that i have. It would be most appreciated!
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
'Smart material' chin strap harvests energy from chewing
King Richard III died painfully on battlefield
Capturing ancient Maya sites from both a rat's and a 'bat's eye view'
quicksilver123
#2
Jan29-13, 10:05 AM
P: 91
bump? i have the same problem and got the same answer - was wondering if it is correct
gneill
#3
Jan29-13, 01:38 PM
Mentor
P: 11,829
Quote Quote by quicksilver123 View Post
bump? i have the same problem and got the same answer - was wondering if it is correct
Looks dubious to me. I just glanced at the workings and it doesn't look like the electrical PE is being handled properly --- there should be contributions at both initial and final separations. And for the initial KE, why is the square of the velocity of the second puck made negative???

Perhaps you should make your own, fresh attempt.

quicksilver123
#4
Jan29-13, 02:11 PM
P: 91
Find the minimum separation between 2 pucks

Its negative because its travelling in the opposite direction. I've attached a picture of the situation.



Here's my work (let's ignore, for now, what's done):

Let East [E] = (+)

di=20m

m1=0.8kg
q1=+3*10^-4 C
Vi1 = 12m/s

m2=0.4kg
q2=+3*10^4 C
vi2= -8m/s

rmin=?

vf' = vf1 = vf2

ptotal=p'total
m1v1+m2v2=(m1+m2)v'
9.6-3.2=1.2v'
6.4/1.2 = v'
v' = 5.333 m/s [E]

I didn't include initial electrical potential energy in this next part because its negligible at that distance (20m).

EK1+EK2 = EE+E'K
0.5(0.8)(12)^2 + (0.5)(0.4)(-8)^2 = (k(3*10^-4)^2)/r +0.5(0.8)(0.4)(5.33)^2
57.6+12.8=k(9*10^-8)/r + 17.04534
53.46566=k(9*10^-8)/r
53.46566r=k(9*10^-8)
r = 15.18142933


bon?
Attached Thumbnails
Untitled.jpg  
gneill
#5
Jan29-13, 02:30 PM
Mentor
P: 11,829
Quote Quote by quicksilver123 View Post
Its negative because its travelling in the opposite direction. I've attached a picture of the situation.
Kinetic energy has no direction, it's always a positive scalar value. KE from all particles sum to a total.

Here's my work (let's ignore, for now, what's done):

Let East [E] = (+)

di=20m

m1=0.8kg
q1=+3*10^-4 C
Vi1 = 12m/s

m2=0.4kg
q2=+3*10^4 C
vi2= -8m/s

rmin=?

vf' = vf1 = vf2

ptotal=p'total
m1v1+m2v2=(m1+m2)v'
9.6-3.2=1.2v'
6.4/1.2 = v'
v' = 5.333 m/s [E]

I didn't include initial electrical potential energy in this next part because its negligible at that distance (20m).
You'd better confirm that. Especially since your 'final' distance of around 15m isn't significantly different. What's the PE for the initial separation?
EK1+EK2 = EE+E'K
0.5(0.8)(12)^2 + (0.5)(0.4)(-8)^2 = (k(3*10^-4)^2)/r +0.5(0.8)(0.4)(5.33)^2
57.6+12.8=k(9*10^-8)/r + 17.04534
53.46566=k(9*10^-8)/r
53.46566r=k(9*10^-8)
r = 15.18142933


bon?
Check the potential energy contribution and redo.
quicksilver123
#6
Jan29-13, 02:56 PM
P: 91
EE+EK1+EK2 = E'E+E'K
(k(3*10^-4)^2 )/20 + 0.5(0.8)(12)^2 + (0.5)(0.4)(-8)^2 = (k(3*10^-4)^2)/r +0.5(0.8)(0.4)(5.33)^2

40.5+57.6-1.6=810/r' +17.0645334
r'=10.19695653m

I was wrong about the initial electrical potential energy. I thought that at that range, its magnitude would be minuscule.

OH WELL.

How's that look?
gneill
#7
Jan29-13, 03:14 PM
Mentor
P: 11,829
Quote Quote by quicksilver123 View Post
EE+EK1+EK2 = E'E+E'K
(k(3*10^-4)^2 )/20 + 0.5(0.8)(12)^2 + (0.5)(0.4)(-8)^2 = (k(3*10^-4)^2)/r +0.5(0.8)(0.4)(5.33)^2

40.5+57.6-1.6=810/r' +17.0645334
r'=10.19695653m

I was wrong about the initial electrical potential energy. I thought that at that range, its magnitude would be minuscule.

OH WELL.

How's that look?
Still not quite right. Check your KE for m2. The magnitude of the value looks incorrect, and KE is never negative!
quicksilver123
#8
Jan29-13, 03:22 PM
P: 91
Damnit. When I wrote the calculation down on paper, I forgot to include the square on the (-8).

EE+EK1+EK2 = E'E+E'K
(k(3*10^-4)^2 )/20 + 0.5(0.8)(12)^2 + (0.5)(0.4)(-8)^2 = (k(3*10^-4)^2)/r +0.5(0.8)(0.4)(5.33)^2
40.5+57.6+12.8-17.0645334=810/r'
93.8354666r'=810
r'=8.632130572m
gneill
#9
Jan29-13, 03:30 PM
Mentor
P: 11,829
That looks much better

Be sure to round your final results to the appropriate number of significant figures.
quicksilver123
#10
Jan29-13, 04:19 PM
P: 91
thanks!
adambahh
#11
Apr3-14, 06:03 PM
P: 2
Quote Quote by quicksilver123 View Post
Damnit. When I wrote the calculation down on paper, I forgot to include the square on the (-8).

EE+EK1+EK2 = E'E+E'K
(k(3*10^-4)^2 )/20 + 0.5(0.8)(12)^2 + (0.5)(0.4)(-8)^2 = (k(3*10^-4)^2)/r +0.5(0.8)(0.4)(5.33)^2
40.5+57.6+12.8-17.0645334=810/r'
93.8354666r'=810
r'=8.632130572m
quicksilver123
I ended up with the same steps and answer, wondering if it ended up being correct in the end?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Minimum separation between pucks Introductory Physics Homework 11
Minimum separation Introductory Physics Homework 1
Collision between two pucks, find the angle Introductory Physics Homework 2
Find the final velocity of the two pucks after the collision Introductory Physics Homework 2
Minimum Work for separation process Materials & Chemical Engineering 0