Collisions/conservation of energy[conceptual]

  • Thread starter Thread starter anti404
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the conservation of kinetic energy in collisions, specifically between two hockey pucks of similar mass. The participant initially expected an elastic collision but found discrepancies in kinetic energy calculations, indicating energy loss. It is acknowledged that real-world collisions are never perfectly elastic, leading to some energy dissipation, though the loss in this case should not be significant. The conversation suggests that understanding collisions can be simplified by using geometrical methods and focusing on idealized scenarios. Ultimately, the participant seeks validation of their calculations and a clearer understanding of the principles involved.
anti404
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
as alluded to in the title, this isn't so much a "problem" as a concept for a lab/experiment we performed.
so, for some reason I was sure that a collision between two hockey pucks of roughly equal masses would result in an elastic collision, but I calculated the KE, and the two values were different, meaning it wasn't elastic. is this, uh, okay? from the way our professor explained the concept of elastic collisions[though not necessarily the lab itself], this type of collision[two similar masses moving at angles and producing a glancing collision] should result in conserved KE. but, maybe I just didn't understand what he was trying to say.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the real world, there is no such thing as a perfectly elastic collision, and therefore, some kinetic energy will always be lost. But the loss of energy between a collision of 2 pucks should not be as huge, say, as the loss would be in the case of 2 marshmallows colliding . How much did you lose? Did you do the calculations correctly?
 
the calculated KE before the collision was around 8.58*10^-3J. KE after was about 5.97*10^3J. so it lost, approximately. 2.5*10^-3J of energy following the collision.

I may have done the calculations incorrectly, but the more plausible situation is that my derived equations may be incorrect; I'm asking on here to see if these answers would be somewhat plausible, or if I should try to completely change everything.
 
Elastic collision processes are taught in a complicated way by most teachers. There is an utterly simple method - it is geometrical, however. But once we appreciate the result, we can do the algebra and get the required numbers.

First, forget about real life situations, because they are most complicated - in fact, that is the reason great scientists have resorted to thought experiments (ideal world situations).

1D collisions (head-on) are the simplest to understand. Solve the problem in center of mass reference frame, first. (just as you do a multiplication or division problem using logarithms). Then , in the next step you can transform the result to the frame of your interest. (just as you do a multiplication or division result using antilogarithms).
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanged mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top