Calculating Post-Collision Speeds of Billiard Balls

  • Thread starter Thread starter pupatel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Balls Collison
AI Thread Summary
In a discussion about a perfectly elastic head-on collision between two billiard balls of equal mass, the initial speeds are given as 2.00 m/s and 3.00 m/s in opposite directions. The key conclusion is that after the collision, the balls will exchange their speeds: the first ball will move at -3.00 m/s and the second at 2.00 m/s. Participants referenced the conservation of momentum and energy equations to derive this outcome, confirming that the final speeds can be derived through algebraic manipulation of these principles. Despite initial confusion, the consensus is that the balls simply swap their velocities due to the nature of elastic collisions.
pupatel
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
:confused:

I was wondering if someone can help me with this problem:

Two biilard balls of equal mass undergo a perfectly elastic head-on collison. If the speed of one ball was initially 2.00 m/s and of the other 3.00 m/s in the opposite direction, what will be their speeds after the collision??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
See this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/colsta.html#c2
In short - the speed of the first ball would be 3 m/s and the speed of the second ball would be 2 m/s.

Conservation of momentum:
m_1v_1 + m_2v_2 = m_1u_1 + m_2u_2

m_1 = m_2

v_1 + v_2 = u_1 + u_2

(v_1 + v_2)^2 = (u_1 + u_2)^2

v_1^2 + 2v_1v_2 + v_2^2 = u_1^2 + 2u_1u_2 + u_2^2

Conservation of energy:
\frac{1}{2}m_1v_1^2 + \frac{1}{2}m_2v_2^2 = \frac{1}{2}m_1u_1^2 + \frac{1}{2}m_2u_2^2

m_1 = m_2

v_1^2 + v_2^2 = u_1^2 + u_2^2

So we have:
v_1^2 + 2v_1v_2 + v_2^2 = u_1^2 + 2u_1u_2 + u_2^2

v_1^2 + v_2^2 = u_1^2 + u_2^2

Substract them:
2v_1v_2 = 2u_1u_2

u_1 = \frac{v_1v_2}{u_2} = v_1 + v_2 - u_2

u_1 = v_1v_2 = v_1u_2 + v_2u_2 - u_2^2

u_2^2 - (v_1 + v_2)u_2 + v_1v_2 = 0

A quick inspection would reveal that the solutions to that are v1 and v2. v2 is the speed before collision, so we are left with v1. Hence u1 = v2 and u2 = v1. There are probably much easier ways to come to this but it's late. :zzz:
 
Last edited:
I am still confused...I use these equations but it doesn't give me the right answer...
 
pupatel said:
:confused:

I was wondering if someone can help me with this problem:

Two biilard balls of equal mass undergo a perfectly elastic head-on collison. If the speed of one ball was initially 2.00 m/s and of the other 3.00 m/s in the opposite direction, what will be their speeds after the collision??
They will interchange speeds. Ball 1 was at 2m/s, after collision is -3m/s. Ball 2 was at -3m/s, after collision is 2m/s.

Edit: I notice Chen already gave this answer. Here's another derivation:
v_1+v_2=u_1+u_2\mbox{ and }v_1^2+v_2^2=u_1^2+u_2^2
Move them around a bit:
v_1-u_1=u_2-v_2\mbox{ and }v_1^2-u_1^2=u_2^2-v_2^2
Divide these last two equations and get:
v_1+u_1=v_2+u_2
Subtract this from the first equation and also add it to the first equation, get:
v_2=u_1\mbox{ and }v_1=u_2
 
Last edited:
I knew there was an easier way to get to that. :-p
 
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top