Continuous Inelastic Collisions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on developing equations for continuous inelastic collisions between two round objects, emphasizing the need for a time-dependent model rather than an instantaneous one. The user seeks a force function of displacement that can be integrated over time, using Hooke's law for linear deformation as a starting point. They aim to generalize this function to account for varying degrees of elasticity and inelasticity in collisions. The conversation also touches on the concept of instantaneous energy loss during collisions, questioning the applicability of the coefficient of restitution in this context. The final suggestion includes using a harmonic damping term to account for energy loss in the model.
mindoftea
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I am trying find equations for continuous "stretchy" collisions, in other words, I have two perfectly round objects of known mass, radius, and velocity, and want to collide them and be able to have them squish together and then bounce apart. I am aware of the method of solving for the intersections of momentum and KE equations, but I need collisions which take actual time, that method is instantaneous. So what I want is a force function of displacement which I can integrate and evaluate at a time t. So, something like this:
\int_{0}^{t}{f\left( x \right)\; dx}
For f(x), I have been using Hooke's law of linear deformation--it works beautifully for elastic collisions. So f\left( x \right)=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{k1}+\frac{1}{k2}}, where k1 and k2 are the spring constants of the objects. Now, I want to expand this function for the general case: anywhere from inelastic to elastic depending on the objects. So what would f(x) be in that case? I'm sure that there are messy solutions involving pre-computing the time-length of the collision and then solving for percent loss based on that and percent elasticity, but what is the neatest, most generalizable integrand for this purpose? Hopefully one that just involves that instant's variables and no attempts to predict the future?
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems to me that one could argue that the concept of a coefficient of restitution doesn't work here because if the percent loss is constant for a material, then, because the duration of the collision is variable depending on masses and velocities, the instantaneous energy loss would also have to be variable, which makes no sense.

So perhaps there is a constant instantaneous energy loss? Because there are infinite instants in the finite duration of the collision, perhaps this instantaneous energy loss would have to be infinitesimal? How would it fit into calculations?
 
If you are using harmonic potential, use harmonic damping term for energy loss.

f(x)=-kx-c\dot{x}
 
Perfect! Thanks so much!
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?

Similar threads

Back
Top