The simple yet best challenge i ve ever seen

  • Thread starter hercules68
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Challenge
In summary, the energy is lost in a collision because the velocity is squared in the energy formula. If you change the scale so that you have a smaller object that is moving more slowly there is much less kinetic energy; when it hits something it makes less of a mess (perhaps just a bit of noise and heat), but all you have done is change the scale not the principal so kinetic energy is always lost in the collision.
  • #1
hercules68
11
0
the simple yet best challenge i ve ever seen !

Fine let's keep it simple

Assume a mass of 'm' moving at velocity 'v'.

now if I somehow increase the mass of it to '2m' (by some means as a mass sticking on to it newly ... or any other means of no loss of energy ... now don't tell me its impossible )

by conservation of momentum ...

new velocity = ( old velocity ) / 2

by conservation of energy

new velocity = ( old velocity ) / (root 2)

??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


hercules68 said:
Fine let's keep it simple

Assume a mass of 'm' moving at velocity 'v'.

now if I somehow increase the mass of it to '2m' (by some means as a mass sticking on to it newly ... or any other means of no loss of energy ... now don't tell me its impossible )

by conservation of momentum ...

new velocity = ( old velocity ) / 2

by conservation of energy

new velocity = ( old velocity ) / (root 2)

??
The kinetic energy is not conserved in this process. It's like a non-elastic collision.
 
  • #3


fine if the object has some ideal adhesive over it ... then few particles stick to it

how is the energy lost
 
  • #4


The whole second body will be attached to the first one. This is what you said.
Not just some particles.

You have initially one object moving with velocity v and another one at rest.
When you put them in contact the internal forces (maybe friction) will accelerate the second body and slow down the first one so you end up with both moving with the same speed.
These internal forces are the ones decreasing the kinetic energy of the system.
 
  • #5


Imagine the first body is a train and the second body is a car on a crossing. Some of the kinetic energy of the train is expended making a mess of the car.

If you change the scale so that you have a smaller object that is moving more slowly there is much less kinetic energy; when it hits something it makes less of a mess (perhaps just a bit of noise and heat), but all you have done is change the scale not the principal so kinetic energy is always lost in the collision.
 
  • #6


energy is lost as heat only if there is relative motion between the bodies after contact. and if this happens in vacuum there is no sound as well
 
  • #7


hercules68 said:
energy is lost as heat only if there is relative motion between the bodies after contact. and if this happens in vacuum there is no sound as well

.. or one or both of the bodies deform after contact. How is the first body going to speed up the second body unless there is either relative motion or deformation?

You are coming at it from the wrong angle, clearly the kinetic energy is converted somewhere, look for where it could be going and that is where you are likely to find it!
 
  • #8


Superficially, the loss is built into the formula:

The energy is lost because the velocity is squared in the energy formula. Cutting the velocity in half results in a 4:1 reduction ratio of that factor, while doubling the mass merely doubles that factor. (Example: 82 gets you 64 to multiply by the mass, but half that velocity, 4, squared only gets you 16 to multiply by the mass, a reduction of 4:1.)
 
  • #9


considering an ideal rigid body upon which the laws hold true it is possible to have zero relative motion and by the way where is the energy lost !
 
  • #10


hercules68 said:
it is possible to have zero relative motion

No it isn't, this would imply instantaneous acceleration and therefore infinite force. I am going to leave you to think this out for yourself now.
 
  • #11


hercules68 said:
considering an ideal rigid body upon which the laws hold true it is possible to have zero relative motion and by the way where is the energy lost !

It may be the case that you don't understand your own problem?
The two bodies do have relative motion, to start with. It has nothing to do with their rigidity or other properties. One is moving with v, the other is at rest. Or maybe they both move with v, from the beginning?

If it's the first case, as they end up by moving together after they get in contact, there must be some interaction force between the two bodies. You can even assume that the second body accelerates instantaneously (and the second decelerates same way). You'll have an infinitely large force acting for an infinitely short time. The final effect: change in relative speed and change in kinetic energy.

I don't understand why you call this a challenge.
If you read a little bit about plastic collisions or conservation laws in systems of particles it should became less challenging.
 

What is "The simple yet best challenge I've ever seen"?

"The simple yet best challenge I've ever seen" is a phrase that refers to a particular challenge or task that is considered to be the best, most effective, or most impressive by the person saying it. It can be used in various contexts, such as in sports, science, or everyday life challenges.

What makes "The simple yet best challenge I've ever seen" stand out?

"The simple yet best challenge I've ever seen" stands out because it usually implies that the challenge is not only simple, but also highly effective and successful. It may also suggest that the challenge is different from others and stands out in a unique way.

Is "The simple yet best challenge I've ever seen" applicable to all fields of study?

Yes, "The simple yet best challenge I've ever seen" can be applied to any field of study or activity. It is a subjective statement that can be used to describe any challenge or task that is considered to be the best by the person saying it.

How can one identify "The simple yet best challenge I've ever seen"?

Identifying "The simple yet best challenge I've ever seen" requires a personal assessment and evaluation of the challenge. It may involve looking at the results, effectiveness, and uniqueness of the challenge compared to others.

Can "The simple yet best challenge I've ever seen" be replicated?

Yes, "The simple yet best challenge I've ever seen" can be replicated, but it may not have the same impact or success in every situation. The success of the challenge may also depend on various factors, such as the skills and resources of the person attempting it.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
999
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
740
Replies
5
Views
849
Replies
1
Views
171
Replies
86
Views
4K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
13
Views
1K
Back
Top