Elastic vs. Completely Elastic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nx01
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elastic
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on classifying a collision involving a 2.4kg ball that rebounds after hitting the floor. The ball hits the ground at 2.5 m/s and rebounds at 1.5 m/s, leading to the conclusion that the collision is inelastic. Participants debate the distinction between "elastic" and "completely elastic" collisions, with some arguing that such distinctions may be misleading. It is noted that while macroscopic collisions are typically not completely elastic, they can be approximated as elastic. Ultimately, the consensus suggests that the terms are relevant for understanding the nature of collisions.
nx01
Messages
16
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A 2.4kg ball falling vertically hits the floor with a speed of 2.5m/s and rebounds with a speed of 1.5m/s. The impact or "collision" described in this problem is:

a. completely elastic
b. completely inelastic
c. elastic
d. inelastic

2. The attempt at a solution

As I understand it, the collision in this problem is "inelastic". However, the answer choices make a distinction between "completely elastic" and "elastic" collisions. Since there are no elastic collisions on the macroscopic scale, this cannot be a "completely elastic" collision. Yet, since some macroscopic collisions are approximated as elastic collisions, this might count as an "elastic" collision.

Is the distinction between elastic and completely elastic collisions a legitimate one, or is it there just to throw me off? How would you answer this question?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it's there just to throw you off. A collision is either elastic or not. On the other hand, an inelastic collision isn't necessarily completely inelastic, so it makes sense to make a distinction.
 
Thank you!
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top