Conservation of Linear momentum and Kinetic energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the conservation of linear momentum and kinetic energy in a system with two masses attached by a string, where one mass is removed at the equilibrium position. The initial kinetic energy is derived from both masses, but confusion arises when one mass is removed, leading to questions about the source of "extra" energy in the system. Participants clarify that conservation laws apply only to closed systems, and removing a mass alters the conditions, preventing the use of these laws. The importance of defining the scenario accurately is emphasized, as misunderstandings about the system's setup can lead to incorrect conclusions. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the necessity of maintaining a closed system to apply conservation principles effectively.
eonden
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Suppose that we are working with a horizontal string with two masses attached. There is no friction on the floor and we move those two attached masses away from the equilibrium position by an undefined distance.
Once the string with those two attached masses passes through the equilibrium possition, we remove one of the attached masses.
As there are no forces present in that moment (as we are in the equilibrium position), we should apply the conservation of the linear momentum such that:
(m1 + m2 ) * v_slow = m1 *v_fast (as we remove the m2 with no speed)
So, we move from an initial Kinetic energy = ((m1+m2)*v_slow^2)/2
To a final Kinetic energy = (m1*v_fast^2)/2 from which we can derive using the conservation of the linear momentum --> ((m1+m2)^2 * v_slow^2)/(2*m1) and as ((m1+m2)^2)/m1 > (m1+m2), we have essentialy given energy to the system.
Can someone explain me where does this "extra" energy come from?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
eonden said:
Suppose that we are working with a horizontal string with two masses attached. There is no friction on the floor and we move those two attached masses away from the equilibrium position by an undefined distance.
What do you mean by "equilibrium position"? Please define the scenario you have in mind more completely.
 
Doc Al said:
What do you mean by "equilibrium position"? Please define the scenario you have in mind more completely.

https://ecourses.ou.edu/ebook/dynamics/ch10/sec101/media/d0121.gif

We start from an original position and move the masses away from the origin to the maximum amplitude of the Simple Harmonic Motion. Once we get to that position, we let it contract by the spring force.
Sorry for not including a simple diagram with the doubt.
 
If I understand you correctly, you want to remove part of the moving mass from the system at some point?
If so, then you can't use conservation laws - these work only for close systems.

In other words, if you magically remove one of the masses, the other one will not change velocity.
 
eonden said:
https://ecourses.ou.edu/ebook/dynamics/ch10/sec101/media/d0121.gif

We start from an original position and move the masses away from the origin to the maximum amplitude of the Simple Harmonic Motion. Once we get to that position, we let it contract by the spring force.
Sorry for not including a simple diagram with the doubt.
I see one mass attached to a wall by a spring. Your first post mentions two masses attached by a string. Are you changing the scenario?

You pull the mass from the equilibrium position and let it go. So what? (I don't see what this has to do with conservation of momentum.)

Please restate your question with reference to the diagram.
 
Bandersnatch said:
If I understand you correctly, you want to remove part of the moving mass from the system at some point?
If so, then you can't use conservation laws - these work only for close systems.

In other words, if you magically remove one of the masses, the other one will not change velocity.

Thanks, completely forgot that when talking about closed systems no matter can be exchanged.
Sorry for the stupid question.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

An intuitive understanding of momentum and kinetic energy
Replies
11
Views
2K
Energy transformed in a collision
Replies
5
Views
2K
Spin created due to an Elastic Collision of two solid balls
Replies
4
Views
2K
Inelastic Collision: Kinetic Energy vs Momentum
Replies
11
Views
2K
Calculating Final Positions & Velocities for M1, M2 & Spring After DeltaT
Replies
6
Views
2K
Conservation of linear momentum when wheels are included
Replies
11
Views
3K
Confusion about work done by friction as negative or positive
Replies
5
Views
3K
Reduce Kinetic Energy Losses when Two Objects Collide
Replies
3
Views
2K
B Conservation of momentum in a closed system
Replies
3
Views
2K
Law of Conservation of Momentum and Jumping Off a Boat with Constant Velocity
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top