Converting Elastic Collision to Inelastic

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the mechanics of converting an elastic collision into an inelastic collision using two 1 kg masses, one moving and one at rest. Participants explore the implications of using an explosion as a means to achieve this transformation, examining the definitions and outcomes associated with inelastic collisions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a buffer, such as a small explosion, could be used to facilitate an inelastic collision by allowing both masses to travel at the same velocity after the collision.
  • Another participant proposes that glue could achieve a similar effect in a straightforward manner.
  • There is a discussion about whether the force of the explosion would be nullified or contribute to the momentum of the system.
  • Some participants note that an explosion would fundamentally change the nature of the collision, raising questions about the conservation of momentum in such scenarios.
  • A later reply introduces the idea of using a spring to apply force at the moment of collision, complicating the scenario by adding a third body to the interaction.
  • Concerns are raised about the interaction of the surfaces of the masses and how that affects the outcome of the collision.
  • Participants express confusion regarding the implications of momentum conservation in the context of achieving an inelastic collision.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on how to effectively convert an elastic collision to an inelastic one using an explosion. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the mechanics and implications of such a transformation.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the definitions of elastic and inelastic collisions, the role of external forces, and the interactions between the masses involved. There are unresolved questions about how these factors influence the outcomes of the proposed scenarios.

Billy Berakus
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi,

If I have two 1 kg masses that are going to hit each other. Mass A is traveling at 10 ms and Mass B is at rest but I wish to cause for an Inelastic Collision. How do I achieve this?

As best I can make of it, I would require a buffer between mass A & B... and I would expect this buffer could be a small explosion that would be less or equal momentum to that of mass A before it hits B.

Am I correct in saying this?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Hi Billy! Welcome to PF! :wink:
Billy Berakus said:
If I have two 1 kg masses that are going to hit each other. Mass A is traveling at 10 ms and Mass B is at rest but I wish to cause for an Inelastic Collision. How do I achieve this?

Glue. :smile:

(a purely inelastic collision is where the two objects have the same final velocity)
 
Glue is good - for a lot of things!

But let say I am not able to use glue only an explosion.

So based on the definition of an inelastic collision, in creating a small explosion that allows the two masses to meet and now travel at the same velocity as opposed to bouncing off each other would be an inelastic collision?

So the explosion pushes off mass A & B in opposite directions, slowing mass A to the same speed as mass B.

I believe the end result would be the same momentum of an inelastic collision plus the force of the explosion? (or is the force of the explosion simply nullified?)
 
There is some "reactive armor" which lessens the net-impact of an incoming projectile.
But, this is not simple, doesn't work the way you might think, is very expensive, and classified.
 
Hi Billy! :smile:
Billy Berakus said:
So based on the definition of an inelastic collision, in creating a small explosion that allows the two masses to meet and now travel at the same velocity as opposed to bouncing off each other would be an inelastic collision?

So the explosion pushes off mass A & B in opposite directions, slowing mass A to the same speed as mass B.

I believe the end result would be the same momentum of an inelastic collision plus the force of the explosion? (or is the force of the explosion simply nullified?)

I'm mystified as to why you're trying to do this. :confused:

An explosion would completely change the collision.

And mometum is conserved in every collision (and explosion) anyway, whether elastic, partially inelastic, or completely inelastic.
 
tiny-tim said:
An explosion would completely change the collision.
QUOTE]

That's ONE of the key points. That's simple. Lateral ablation, however, is not.
 
If you would like we could think of the explosion as a loaded spring that pushes at the exact moment that A hits B. The power of the spring is set to exact amount of force required to push B forward and slow A to the speed of B.

I am just trying to understand in my mind how one could convert a collision from elastic to inelastic without the use of glue, magnets or any other medium that simply connects the two masses.

I do appreciate your help on this!
 
Last edited:
You said...

"And mometum is conserved in every collision (and explosion) anyway, whether elastic, partially inelastic, or completely inelastic."

This is correct but in an elastic collision mass A travels back at a velocity near equal to that it came at. I am trying to have it so it will not travel back.

Based on your statement being that momentum is conserverd in every collision/explosion that if the two mass are now traveling together than we should have achieved at the very least the momentum of a inelastic collision.

Is this right?
 
(just got up :zzz: …)
Billy Berakus said:
If you would like we could think of the explosion as a loaded spring that pushes at the exact moment that A hits B. The power of the spring is set to exact amount of force required to push B forward and slow A to the speed of B.

But then that's a collision between three bodies. :redface:
I am just trying to understand in my mind how one could convert a collision from elastic to inelastic without the use of glue, magnets or any other medium that simply connects the two masses.

Well, you can't … whether A and B end up with the same velocity depends on how their surfaces interact.
Billy Berakus said:
… in an elastic collision mass A travels back at a velocity near equal to that it came at.

No … if they have the same mass, then A stops dead, and B acquires the velocity that A had (like that desk toy with the five silver spheres :smile:).
Based on your statement being that momentum is conserverd in every collision/explosion that if the two mass are now traveling together than we should have achieved at the very least the momentum of a inelastic collision.

Is this right?

Sorry, not following you. :confused:
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Elastic collision between two spheres
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Collisions Toolkit: Impulse, Momentum & Energy Formulas
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Elastic collision - should final velocities be asymmetric?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
High School Elastic and inelastic collisions
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Undergrad Momentum Transfer: Elastic Collision vs Inelastic Collision
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
High School Confused about force body diagram for 2 body collision
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate Counter-intuitive 2D collision
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad Work Done/Energy Transferred in One Dimensional Collision
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate Transfer of Momentum during a collision
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
Undergrad Momentum conservation in perfectly inelastic collision
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K