Are Unit Conversions Necessary for Calculating Momentum in Inelastic Collisions?

AI Thread Summary
In calculating momentum for inelastic collisions, converting units to SI (kilograms and meters per second) is not strictly necessary, but it simplifies the process and reduces potential errors. The discussion emphasizes that using the original units (tons and miles per hour) can yield valid results, as long as the final answers are converted to SI if required. The fraction of energy lost in the collision is correctly expressed as lost energy divided by initial energy. However, it is suggested that students should focus on understanding the concepts rather than getting bogged down by unit conversions, which can detract from their confidence. Ultimately, clarity in calculations is more important than adhering to a specific unit system.
frasifrasi
Messages
276
Reaction score
0
Ok, the question is the following:

"In a railroad switchyard, a 56 ton freight car is sent at 7.0 mi/h toward a 31 ton car that is moving in the same direction at 26 mi/h."

- what is the speed of the pair after they couple together?
-what fraction of the initial kinetic energy was lost in the collision?


--> My questions is, to find the momentum, do I need to convert the units to kg? I have seen it in examples where the units are not converted. Does it matter?

--> Also, the fraction of energy lost is expressed as lost energy/initial energy , is that correct?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You don't have to convert to SI, but it makes everything so much easier and nicer. I learned physics (and I'm assuming most people are the same... and hoping) all in SI, so to me it just feels nicer :P It wouldn't be difficult; just look up a conversion table on google, or something.

For the second part, I would say that the question is asking what the ratio of the initial kinetic energy to the final kinetic energy.

In other words, initial kinetic energy/final kinetic energy.

Hope that helps!
 
Ok, I see.

My point was, if I do the calculations with tons, the answer for momentum will be in mi/h, right? So, that is really no point in converting to kg, it is easier just to look at final answer and convert it to SI (m/s) then. Is that a correct way of looking at it?
 
frasifrasi said:
So, that is really no point in converting to kg, it is easier just to look at final answer and convert it to SI (m/s) then. Is that a correct way of looking at it?

I agree 100%. :smile:

Examiners will take marks off if you create extra work for yourself!

Actually … don't even bother to convert it to m/s at the end unless you think the examiners want you to.
 
This is one of the reasons why I dislike the English system of units; it can lower a students confidence in solving problems while they are trying to learn the concepts.

As you probably know, kg is mass and not weight. In a pound is the English systems unit of force (where as it is a Newton in SI). For mass, the English system has units known as Slugs. So if you have a 10 lb weight, then it has a mass of about 0.31 Slugs [(10lb/32.2ft/s^2)=0.31 Slugs]
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top