Detailed simulation or SlowMo of elastic collision?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the detailed mechanics of elastic collisions, particularly in the context of Newton's Cradle and the behavior of macroscopic objects during such collisions. Participants explore the nature of shockwaves, energy conservation, and the potential for energy loss in the form of "ringing" after collisions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions their understanding of elastic collisions and proposes a simplified model of two rods colliding head-on, suggesting that compression and shockwaves will occur.
  • Another participant agrees with the initial analysis, providing a mathematical expression for the contact force and describing the behavior of the compression zone during the collision.
  • Concerns are raised about the reflection of waves at the ends of the rods and whether energy remains in the form of ringing after separation.
  • Some participants note that the golf ball exhibits ringing after colliding with a wall, suggesting that not all collisions are purely elastic and questioning the feasibility of achieving zero energy loss in macroscopic collisions.
  • Differences between the collision of a golf ball and the rods are highlighted, including deformation size and geometry, which may affect energy conservation and ringing.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the possibility of achieving zero ringing in any theoretical setup, even under ideal conditions.
  • A later reply discusses the mathematical framework of the wave equation and its implications for the collision scenario, inviting scrutiny of the proposed solution.
  • Another participant expresses their inability to critique the mathematical conclusion but shows interest in simulating the scenario using springs to explore the behavior post-collision.
  • Suggestions are made for simulating the collisions in a Newton's Cradle setup, including parameters for contact time and spring constants.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the nature of energy conservation in elastic collisions, the potential for ringing, and the applicability of mathematical models. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on these topics.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of real-world collisions and the limitations of idealized models, including assumptions about material properties and deformation behaviors. The discussion highlights the dependence on specific conditions and definitions related to elasticity and energy loss.

rumborak
Messages
706
Reaction score
154
I was thinking about Newton's Cradle the other day, and I wondered how those collisions actually look like in detail. Which then got me thinking that my understanding of even a basic elastic collision of two macroscopic objects is weak to say the least.

Simplified, the two objects could be two rods of a certain length but negligible width, and they simply meet head on.

[=======] [=======]

I would imagine when they meet, they will compress each other's ends, which will cause a pressure shockwave to propagate through both of them at the specific speed of sound. These shockwaves will probably get reflected at the respective ends etc.

It will probably get rather complex pretty quickly, but are there simulations of or SlowMo videos of this, and particularly how it results in such a clean end result of both objects traveling away from each other? I could imagine the two could just as well just "ring" at their respective resonance frequency, wasting a lot of energy that way (and thus no longer being elastic).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
Physics news on Phys.org
Your analysis is, in my judgment, spot on. The compression zone will grow at the speed of sound.

To quantify things, the contact force would be $$F=\rho c A v$$ where c is the speed of sound ##\sqrt{E/\rho}## and v is the approach velocity. Upstream of the compression zone, the velocity will be v, and inside the compression zone, the velocity will be zero. The compressive axial strain within the compression zone will be ##\epsilon=v/c##.

Once the compression zone reaches the far upstream end of the bar, the entire bar will be stationary, but compressed. After this, the compression begins getting released, starting at the far end. In the released portion, the velocity will be -v, while the remainder of the bar is stationary and compressed (and the contact force remains constant at F).. The release zone travels at the speed of sound until the compression is released over the entire bar, and the entire bar is moving at velocity -v. At this point, the bars separate.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur and rumborak
Actually, when I think about it, this reflection at the end of the rods is probably the classic "closed end" wave reflection where the phase reverses. Meaning, the compression turns into expansion and travels backwards through the rod, as you mention.

I'm still a bit surprised that no energy remains in these waves after separation, which would result in that "ringing" of the rods. Is this one of those cases where the effects exactly cancel out, and all energy results in motion?
 
rumborak said:
Actually, when I think about it, this reflection at the end of the rods is probably the classic "closed end" wave reflection where the phase reverses. Meaning, the compression turns into expansion and travels backwards through the rod, as you mention.

I'm still a bit surprised that no energy remains in these waves after separation, which would result in that "ringing" of the rods. Is this one of those cases where the effects exactly cancel out, and all energy results in motion?
Hmmm. Interesting. It seems like all the initial kinetic energy is accounted for, and momentum is conserved.
 
rumborak said:
I was thinking about Newton's Cradle the other day, and I wondered how those collisions actually look like in detail. Which then got me thinking that my understanding of even a basic elastic collision of two macroscopic objects is weak to say the least.
This is an amazing Slo-Mo video of colliding a golf ball with steel.

 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nasu and jerromyjon
That's interesting though, because the golf ball exhibits exactly that "ringing" I was talking about (it keeps deforming after it separated from the wall). Clearly this wasn't a purely elastic collision because part of the energy is now used in that ringing.

Interesting question: usually energy losses like this are marked down to plastic deformation. But, is the idea of a macroscopic object exhibiting elastic collision, even under perfect conditions, unreasonable, because the object will always have a certain part of its initial energy siphoned into that kind of "ringing"?
 
rumborak said:
That's interesting though, because the golf ball exhibits exactly that "ringing" I was talking about (it keeps deforming after it separated from the wall). Clearly this wasn't a purely elastic collision because part of the energy is now used in that ringing.

Interesting question: usually energy losses like this are marked down to plastic deformation. But, is the idea of a macroscopic object exhibiting elastic collision, even under perfect conditions, unreasonable, because the object will always have a certain part of its initial energy siphoned into that kind of "ringing"?
There are big difference between this and the rod collision. First, and most important, the golf ball deformation is huge, compared to the small deformations required for Hooke's law to apply (as in the rod case). Secondly the geometry is very different (spherical, vs head-on cylindrical). Thirdly, if the two rods are not of exactly the same length, there will be unsymmetry, and the waves will reflect from the ends at different times. This should almost certainly result in ringing. So, it would see that the rod collision is a very special case.
 
That's all true. Somehow I still have a hard time imagining even a theoretical setup in which *any* object, entirely within Hooke's Law's bounds, would come out with zero ringing. Negligible amount, maybe. Entirely? Somehow I doubt that.
 
rumborak said:
That's all true. Somehow I still have a hard time imagining even a theoretical setup in which *any* object, entirely within Hooke's Law's bounds, would come out with zero ringing. Negligible amount, maybe. Entirely? Somehow I doubt that.
I hear ya. But, as far as I can tell, the solution I gave to this linear problem satisfies the differential wave equation (in terms of the axial strain and/or the displacement), the boundary conditions, and the initial conditions. So since the equations are linear, it must be the unique solution. Here is the wave equation in terms of displacement u: $$\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2 u}{dt^2}=\frac{d^2 u}{dx^2}$$ where $$c^2=\frac{E}{\rho}$$. The axial strain in terms of the displacement is given kinematically by: $$\epsilon=\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}$$So the strain also satisfies the wave equation also. The solution for the strain as a function of time and position I described is a d'alembert form of the solution. If you can spot a logical or mathematical error in the solution I described, I'm anxious to hear about it.
 
  • #10
Dagnabbit, I'm in no position to make an educated criticism of what you posted :) I easily understand the parts of what you posted, but I can't say whether the conclusion you draw is logically binding.
At the very least it will give me something to do on an upcoming 3-hour flight of mine. I should be reasonably able to simulate the scenario as a collection of connected ideal springs, and see how they behave after separation.
 
  • #11
rumborak said:
Dagnabbit, I'm in no position to make an educated criticism of what you posted :) I easily understand the parts of what you posted, but I can't say whether the conclusion you draw is logically binding.
At the very least it will give me something to do on an upcoming 3-hour flight of mine. I should be reasonably able to simulate the scenario as a collection of connected ideal springs, and see how they behave after separation.
Cool. Springs and masses in series. Very nice.
 
  • #12
If you simulate the collisions of a Newton's Cradle with springs, start with two rigid balls with the right mass for steel and an ideal spring at the contact. Pick a spring constant such that the first ball is in contact with the second ball for about 1 millisecond, or maybe slightly less, when it swings in.

I've done a lot of hammer testing to find natural frequencies, and 1 msec is about the right contact time for steel balls of the size used in a typical Newton's Cradle. I would expect ringing of the balls to be minimal because the force vs time curve of the impact will be a half sine of 1 msec duration, so will not put much energy into ringing the much higher ball natural frequency.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K