Why do completely inelastic collision have MAXIMUM energy loss?

AI Thread Summary
In a perfectly inelastic collision, maximum energy loss occurs because all kinetic energy that goes into deformation is not converted back into kinetic energy, resulting in a net loss of mechanical energy. The process can be viewed in two phases: the first phase involves the objects deforming and storing potential energy, while the second phase, which is absent in perfectly inelastic collisions, would involve restoring that energy as kinetic energy. Since no potential energy is stored in a perfectly inelastic collision, all energy dissipates, primarily as heat. Although energy is conserved overall when accounting for all forms, the kinetic energy available for motion is maximally reduced. Thus, perfectly inelastic collisions represent the scenario with the highest kinetic energy loss.
MathewsMD
Messages
430
Reaction score
7
When following solutions like this link: http://physics.about.com/od/physicsmtop/g/PerfectlyInelasticCollision.htm
I understand that energy is lost, but it doesn't necessarily show that this is MAXIMUM energy loss, just that there is energy lost. How would you go about proving that more energy cannot be lost, as long as momentum is conserved (no net external force)?
I honestly feel like I'm just missing something here, so any clarification on the matter would be much appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi MathewsMD! :smile:

Suppose two objects collide head-on so that their centre of mass was stationary before the collision.

Clearly the minimum KE afterwards is zero (because zero is possible, and < zero isn't! :wink:).

Zero corresponds to the two bodies sticking together, ie a perfectly inelastic collision.

Now transform into any other frame of reference.
 
In addition to tiny-tim's version, You may also think of a collision as a two-phase process:

In phase 1, their relative velocity at the contact point goes to zero, the objects deforming to maximal extent (and gaining maximal potential energy, as in two springs).

In phase 2, the RESTITUTION phase, the potential energy associated with deformation is switched back into kinetic energy, to a CERTAIN DEGREE. For fully elastic collisions, ALL energy converted from kinetic in phase 1 was contained in potential energy, and thus for full restitution, energy is always conserved.

INELASTIC collisions may be thought of as the extreme case where NONE of the energy going into deformation was stored in potential energy (it dissipates as heat instead); i.e, you experience maximal energy loss.
 
arildno said:
INELASTIC collisions may be thought of as the extreme case where NONE of the energy going into deformation was stored in potential energy (it dissipates as heat instead); i.e, you experience maximal energy loss.

That is a bit over-simplified. Some of the energy may be stored permanently in the bodies without being converted to heat - for example, as "locked in" stresses and strains resulting from plastic deformation of the bodies.

The key point is that none of the internal energy is transferred back into KE which corresponds to rigid body motion of the objects, i.e. "you experience maximal kinetic energy loss."

Of course if you account for all forms of energy, the energy is conserved whatever type of collision occurs.
 
AlephZero said:
That is a bit over-simplified. Some of the energy may be stored permanently in the bodies without being converted to heat - for example, as "locked in" stresses and strains resulting from plastic deformation of the bodies.

The key point is that none of the internal energy is transferred back into KE which corresponds to rigid body motion of the objects, i.e. "you experience maximal kinetic energy loss."

Of course if you account for all forms of energy, the energy is conserved whatever type of collision occurs.
Sure it is oversimplified.
I cut out the mechanical energy loss from the generation of sound waves as well.
The point is that there is no potential energy storage in the idealized inelastic collision, thus meaning there will be a net loss of mechanical energy in the system, whatever type of other forms of energy the initial kinetic energy is converted into.
 
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...
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