Effect of Varying Ball Size in Newton's Cradle

  • Thread starter Thread starter d4rr3n
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
In a Newton's cradle with balls of varying sizes, the smaller balls are expected to move with greater velocities than the larger ones due to the conservation of kinetic energy and momentum transfer. When a larger ball strikes smaller balls, the kinetic energy is transmitted through the decreasing mass, causing the last ball to accelerate away faster than the initial ball. The motion of the system will not be periodic as it is with equal-mass balls, but specific mass ratios can create interesting patterns. The discussion highlights that all balls will move forward after a collision, contrary to the traditional expectation that only the last ball moves. This variation in ball size alters the dynamics significantly compared to a standard Newton's cradle setup.
d4rr3n
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
In a Newtons cradle the ball at one end of the ball train moves with similar velocity to the other minus the gradual slowing due to loss of energy in both.

What would be the result if I made a Newtons cradle in which the size/mass of the balls gradually decrease?
My instinct tells me that the small ball will move with several times grater velocity then the large ball but not sure why. Also assuming that assertion in correct is it necessary to have a great number of balls of different sizes, what is the minimum number that would result in the same velocity difference?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the large ball was lifted and released, when it struct the others, all would tend to spread out.
If the small one was lifted and release, it would bounce off, and again, the balls would tend to spread.
In general, the motion would not become periodic as it is with the equal-mass cradle. But you could probably find mass ratios for the balls that would create interesting periodic patterns.
 
If the large ball was lifted and released would not its kinetic energy be transmitted through the decreasing size balls causing the last to accelerate away from the others with a grater velocity then the large ball that initiated the process?
 
d4rr3n said:
If the large ball was lifted and released would not its kinetic energy be transmitted through the decreasing size balls causing the last to accelerate away from the others with a grater velocity then the large ball that initiated the process?
Let's say that the masses were 4, 2, 1.
4 hits 2 with velocity 1.
-- The average velocity is reduce by the mass increase by (4/6) to 0.667, but they will still recede from each other at v=1.
-- So 4 moves forward at 0.667-0.333 = 0.333.
-- 2 moves forward at 0.667 + 0.667 = 1.333.
2 immediately hits 1 with velocity 1.333
-- The average velocity is reduced by the mass increase by (2/3) to 0.8889, but they will still recede from each other at v=1.333.
-- So 2 moves forward at 0.8889-0.4444 = 0.4444. This is still faster that the 4 ball, so there is no further collision.
-- 1 moves away at 0.88889+0.88889 = 1.77778.

So immediately after 4 strikes 1 and 2 all move forward: 4 at 0.333; 2 at 0.444; and 1 at 1.778.
 
In a Newtons cradle when one ball strikes one end only the last moves forward, the force is merely transmitted through the others...but you are saying they will all move forward? In the example you gave I would expect 4 to strike 2 and 1 to rapidly accelerate away from 2, I would expect 2 to hardly move but merely act as a path of the kinetic energy.
 
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...
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...
Back
Top