Linear momentum conservation vs mecanical energy conservation

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion, the conservation of linear momentum is applied to a collision between two balls, A and B, where ball A collides with ball B, initially at rest. The calculation shows that after the collision, both balls move with the same velocity v', derived from momentum conservation. However, when applying mechanical energy conservation, the results differ, indicating a potential energy dissipation during the collision. The conversation raises the question of whether the balls must stick together to achieve the same velocity, suggesting that this scenario does not represent an elastic collision. The key takeaway is that mechanical energy conservation cannot be used in this case due to energy loss, likely from inelastic collision effects.
jaumzaum
Messages
433
Reaction score
33
A ball A (mass ma) with initial velocity v colides with a ball B (mb) initially stopped. A and B gets the same direction/velocity v', Calculate v'

By linear momentum conservation
ma.v = (ma + mb).v'
v' = mav(ma + mb)

But by mecanical energy conservation

ma.v²/2 = (ma + mb).v'²/2
v' = v (ma/(ma + mb))^(1/2), which is wrong

Why we can't use mecanical energy conservation, is there a energy dissipation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jaumzaum said:
A ball A (mass ma) with initial velocity v colides with a ball B (mb) initially stopped. A and B gets the same direction/velocity v', Calculate v'
...
Why we can't use mecanical energy conservation, is there a energy dissipation?

Well, for A and B to get the same direction/velocity v' after the collision, don't they have to stick?

Does that sound like an elastic collision?
 
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