Elastic collision COR problem.

AI Thread Summary
In a perfectly elastic collision, the coefficient of restitution (e) equals 1, indicating that the relative speed of separation is equal to the relative speed of approach. This relationship is derived from the conservation of kinetic energy and momentum, where the total kinetic energy remains constant throughout the collision. The analysis shows that the velocities of the colliding objects revert to their original magnitudes post-collision, demonstrating that kinetic energy is converted to potential energy and back without loss. The mathematical derivations confirm that the changes in velocity for both objects are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction. Thus, the principle of conservation leads to the conclusion that e = 1 for perfectly elastic collisions.
arteelibunao
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Why is e=1 for perfectly elastic collision?

How did they arrive with that? Any derivations? Thanks.

-Artee Libunao
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The coefficient of restitution is defined as
C_{R} = \frac{v_{2} - v_{1}}{u_{1} - u_{2}}

For elastic collisions, it can shown from conservation of kinetic energy and conservation of momentum that relative speed of approach = relative speed of separation for the two objects colliding. Hence v_{2} - v_{1} = u_{1} - u_{2}
 
arteelibunao said:
Why is e=1 for perfectly elastic collision?

How did they arrive with that? Any derivations?

If you think of the two colliding objects as a system, you realize that, in the absence of external forces (and the force arising in a collision is an internal one of the system), the system cannot accelerate: in any frame, the velocity of the center of mass must remain constant.

v_{CM} = \frac{{V_o M}}<br /> {{m + M}} + \frac{{v_o m}}<br /> {{m + M}} = \frac{{V_f M}}<br /> {{m + M}} + \frac{{v_f m}}<br /> {{m + M}}

Another expression of the same is conservation of momentum:

p_o = V_o M + v_o m = V_f M + v_f m = p_f

Or Newton's Third Law:

\begin{gathered}<br /> V_o M + v_o m = V_f M + v_f m_f \hfill \\<br /> v_o m - v_f m_f = V_f M - V_o M \hfill \\<br /> m(v_o - v_f ) = M(V_f - V_o ) \hfill \\<br /> m(v_f - v_o ) = - M(V_f - V_o ) \hfill \\<br /> m\Delta v = - M\Delta V \hfill \\ <br /> \end{gathered}

and since collision time is the same for both objects:

\begin{gathered}<br /> m\Delta v/\Delta t = - M\Delta V/\Delta t \hfill \\<br /> ma = - MA \hfill \\ <br /> \end{gathered}

But all this only tells you how the total effect, the total acceleration, is distributed between the two objects, not its magnitude (the equality would still be true if you multiply both sides by n). To learn this, you must rely on conservation of energy and distinguish different cases depending on the characterstics of the materials involved.

In a perfectly elastic collision (an almost ideal situation), the materials may deform but recover their original size thanks to restoring forces. Another way to say it: KE turns into Potential Energy ad back again into KE. Thus the total KE of the system is conserved:

<br /> \begin{gathered}<br /> V_o ^2 M + v_o ^2 m = V_f ^2 M + v_f ^2 m \hfill \\<br /> V_o ^2 M - V_f ^2 M = v_f ^2 m - v_o ^2 m \hfill \\<br /> M(V_o ^2 - V_f ^2 ) = m(v_f ^2 - v_o ^2 ) \hfill \\<br /> M(V_f ^2 - V_o ^2 ) = - m(v_f ^2 - v_o ^2 ) \hfill \\<br /> M(V_f - V_o )(V_f + V_o ) = - m(v_f - v_o )(v_f + v_o ) \hfill \\<br /> M\Delta V(V_f + V_o ) = - m\Delta v(v_f + v_o ) \hfill \\ <br /> \end{gathered} <br />

If you look back to conservation of momentum, you realize that the left-hand terms of each side are the same and so you are left with:

\begin{gathered}<br /> V_f + V_o = v_f + v_o \hfill \\<br /> V_f - v_f = v_o - V_o \hfill \\<br /> V_f - v_f = - (V_o - v_o ) \hfill \\<br /> v_{rel}^{final} = - v_{rel}^{original} \hfill \\ <br /> \end{gathered} <br />

So in an elastic collision the relative velocity of separation is of the same module as the relative velocity of approach, just a different sign. In other words, the collision has "restituted" both objects to their original velocities, in terms of magnitude, i.e. the coefficient of restitution is 1:

v_{rel}^{final} = ev_{rel}^{original} \to CR = e = \frac{{v_{rel}^{final} }}<br /> {{v_{rel}^{original} }} = 1
 
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