Bouncing Ball Conservation of Energy

AI Thread Summary
In a recent discussion on the conservation of energy in bouncing balls, it was noted that heavier balls tend to lose total energy more quickly than lighter ones due to greater energy losses to heat during compression. While air resistance affects both masses equally, the material properties of the balls, such as elasticity, play a significant role in energy retention. The conversation highlighted that the simulation used may have assumptions that do not reflect real-world behavior, as heavier, resilient balls typically bounce better. Participants were encouraged to re-examine the data from their virtual labs for accuracy. The discussion also raised a new question about the potential impact of a small ball dropped from a significant height.
gbaby370
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
I have just recently completed a lab in Conservation of Energy. My course is through correspondence, so my labs are virtual. I noticed that the heavier the ball was, the haters the total energy dropped as the ball continued to bounce. Now I understand that energy can be transferred into many different things (heat, sound etc...), and would have to overcome air resistance. Assuming that all properties of each ball where the same, except for mass; Why does the heavier ball lose total energy quicker than the lighter ball?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Part of this depends on how elastic is the material that the ball is made of. Is it a compound ball, such a hollow ball filled with air inside (air is very elastic)? A billiard ball is heaver than a rubber ball, but will retain more energy per bounce than some types of rubber balls if the billiard ball is bounced on a hard enough surface.
 
gbaby370 said:
Assuming that all properties of each ball where the same, except for mass; Why does the heavier ball lose total energy quicker than the lighter ball?
During the bounce, the kinetic energy of the ball is converted into elastic potential of the ball, and then back to the kinetic energy. To store more kinetic energy in elastic potential, you need to compress the ball more. That should make sense intuitive as well. All other things being equal, you expect heavier ball to compress more during the bounce. That typically results in greater losses of energy to heat.

On the other hand, the air resistance doesn't depend on mass, so energy lost to drag is going to be exactly the same, and so proportionally lower for heavier ball. But it's a very minor effect for this experiment.
 
gbaby370 said:
Why does the heavier ball lose total energy quicker than the lighter ball?

This is not true in general. The amount of energy lost at each bounce will depend on many factors. The simulation (?) you happen to be using is making some assumptions that you may not be aware of. In general, you usually find quite the reverse because air resistance becomes less relevant for heavy objects and 'good bouncers' tend to be heavy and made with a very resilient and low loss material. Ball bearings on a steel plate are 'heavy' but go on bouncing for ages.
Re-examine the data that your virtual lab uses.
 
I have a new bouncing ball question. Seems to fit in this category... If a bouncing ball, about the size you would find in a vending machine (roughly 1 inch in diameter) was dropped from a 30 floor balcony, would it break the windscreen of a car?
 
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