Confusion Over Collision: Which Formula is Correct? Urgent Help Needed!

  • Thread starter Thread starter rootX
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around collision physics, specifically the application of formulas related to momentum and kinetic energy in one-dimensional collisions. The original poster expresses confusion over different results obtained from various methods of calculation, including a relativity approach and standard collision equations.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to reconcile results from two different methods of calculating final velocities after a collision, questioning the validity of the formulas used. Some participants inquire about the conversion between reference frames and the implications of kinetic energy conservation.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring different interpretations of the collision equations and their applicability to the problem. There is an ongoing examination of assumptions regarding the dimensionality of the collision and the conservation of kinetic energy, with no clear consensus reached yet.

Contextual Notes

The original poster references a previous question and expresses urgency due to an impending deadline. There is mention of specific values and conditions related to the problem, including the mass and initial velocities involved in the collision scenario.

rootX
Messages
480
Reaction score
4
need urgent help

Homework Statement


Still working on the question I posted few days ago, here's the link for that question:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=164889

I kinda got confident over my answer, but I discovered another formula, and it screwed up everything.
It is:
[tex]V_{1,f} = \frac{m_{1}-m_{2}}{m_{1}+m_{2}} v_{1,i} + \frac{2 * m_{1}}{m_{1}+m_{2}} v_{2,i}[/tex]
[tex]V_{2,f} = \frac{m_{1}-m_{2}}{m_{1}+m_{2}} v_{2,i} + \frac{2 * m_{1}}{m_{1}+m_{2}} v_{1,i}[/tex]

Hope, I put the tex code right. Anyhow, it gives me
[tex]x_{1,f}=-4.37[/tex]
[tex]x_{2,f}=10.03[/tex]
[tex]y_{1,f}=7.01[/tex]
[tex]y_{2,f}=4.48[/tex]

But using my that previous way(that relativity method) I get
[tex]x_{1,f}=-1.20[/tex]
[tex]x_{2,f}=9.40[/tex]
[tex]y_{1,f}=13.20[/tex]
[tex]y_{2,f}=5.85[/tex]

Now, I am confused over mine(I tried that applet, but it is pretty cumbersome
to set values.

Anyhow, if anyone can tell me which answer is right?
I would be really thankful. I have this thing due tomorrow :cry:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I didn't really look that closely at your relativity method, but did you convert back to the "non-relativity" frame after you found your values? Just an idea.
 
hage567 said:
I didn't really look that closely at your relativity method, but did you convert back to the "non-relativity" frame after you found your values? Just an idea.

Yes, I did.
And if I use my answers, then they give total final kinetic energy same as before the collisions.
However, the answer that that formula gives provide a different total kinetic energy(But I saw it in like two Physics books since then)
 
just one last more question

A metal tube is 2.40 m long and has a mass of 800g. It contains 200g sliding mass at its front end. There is no friction between any surface. When the sliding mass reached the end of the tube, it sticks to a magnet attached there. How long would it take the tube to travel a distance of 6.00 m, if the metal tube has an initial velocity of 6.00 m/s?

I calculated time it took before the sliding mass reached the end, and then found the distance left to cover when this happens, and find time for that distance. And, I got 1.16 s.
Anyone can check my answer?
 
oops, that was supposed to go in a new thread
 
I think those equations you posted are intended for one-dimensional collisions.
 
hage567 said:
I think those equations you posted are intended for one-dimensional collisions.

yes, the book mentions that. However, I did break the velocities into components. So, shouldn't that make the collision 1-dimensional for each axis?
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
15K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K