Find Coefficient of Restitution with just height of the ball after one bounce

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The coefficient of restitution (e) for a ball dropped from a height of 9.02 m and rebounding to 1.78 m is calculated using the formula e = v'/v, where v' is the rebound speed and v is the landing speed. The landing speed was determined to be 13.30 m/s, while the rebound speed was calculated as 5.91 m/s, resulting in a coefficient of restitution of 0.44. The discussion emphasized the importance of understanding the SUVAT equations and the role of gravity in both downward and upward motion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the coefficient of restitution in physics
  • Familiarity with SUVAT equations for motion analysis
  • Basic knowledge of kinematics and gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s²)
  • Ability to manipulate algebraic equations for solving physics problems
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the coefficient of restitution from height ratios
  • Explore advanced applications of SUVAT equations in different motion scenarios
  • Learn about energy conservation principles in elastic and inelastic collisions
  • Investigate the effects of varying heights on the coefficient of restitution in experiments
USEFUL FOR

Students studying physics, particularly those focusing on mechanics and kinematics, as well as educators looking for practical examples of the coefficient of restitution in real-world applications.

x2017
Messages
84
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


A ball is dropped from a height of 9.02 m. After hitting the ground, the ball then rebounds to a height of 1.78 m. What is the coefficient of restitution associated with the ball and ground impact?

Homework Equations


e=(V'-v')/(V-v)

The Attempt at a Solution


I thought maybe this was a trick question and you just do 9.02-1.78=7.24 and that was the answer but I am wrong... I need a bit of guidance on how to proceed with this question.

EDIT:
I just realized I should be using e=v'/v instead since there is only one ball... And I think I have realized that v' is -9.81? Not completely sure though because I also think that that might only be acceleration... CONFUSED lol
I thought that maybe I could use acceleration to find velocity, but I don't have the time...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
x2017 said:
And I think I have realized that v' is -9.81? Not completely sure though because I also think that that might only be acceleration...
Yes, that's the acceleration. What SUVAT equation do you know that relates acceleration, distance and speeds?
 
haruspex said:
Yes, that's the acceleration. What SUVAT equation do you know that relates acceleration, distance and speeds?

vf2=vi2+2ad perhaps?
Thanks for the reply, I always seem to forget about the SUVAT equations...

vf2=vi2+2ad
vf2-vi2=2(9.81)(9.02)

I used 9.02m and not 1.78m because it traveled down 9.02m when gravity was acting on it and I don't know what it's acceleration upwards is. Hopefully this is correct!

vf2-vi2=2(9.81)(9.02)
vf2-vi2=176.9724
vf-vi=13.30
Δv=13.30m/s

Is the above something I can do? So now I have the change in velocity of the ball...
But only on the way down correct? or is this all together?
 
x2017 said:
vf2=vi2+2ad perhaps?
Thanks for the reply, I always seem to forget about the SUVAT equations...

vf2=vi2+2ad
vf2-vi2=2(9.81)(9.02)

I used 9.02m and not 1.78m because it traveled down 9.02m when gravity was acting on it and I don't know what it's acceleration upwards is. Hopefully this is correct!

vf2-vi2=2(9.81)(9.02)
vf2-vi2=176.9724
vf-vi=13.30
Δv=13.30m/s

Is the above something I can do? So now I have the change in velocity of the ball...
But only on the way down correct? or is this all together?
You have found the landing speed, yes. A few doubtful steps along the way, though.
You should be careful with signs. If up is positive, the acceleration is -9.81m/s2, and the distance is -9.02m. That way you get a positive Δ(v2).
Secondly, you cannot go straight from vf2-vi2 to vf-vi by square rooting. You need to plug in the value for vi (0) first.

Now you need to find the rebound speed by the same method.
 
haruspex said:
You have found the landing speed, yes. A few doubtful steps along the way, though.
You should be careful with signs. If up is positive, the acceleration is -9.81m/s2, and the distance is -9.02m. That way you get a positive Δ(v2).
Secondly, you cannot go straight from vf2-vi2 to vf-vi by square rooting. You need to plug in the value for vi (0) first.

Now you need to find the rebound speed by the same method.

How do I get the acceleration for the rebound speed though? Since it's traveling upwards it's not gravity right? And I don't have enough information to solve for acceleration with Δv/Δt.
 
x2017 said:
How do I get the acceleration for the rebound speed though? Since it's traveling upwards it's not gravity right?
why not? Does gravity stop acting on a body just because it is moving upwards?
 
haruspex said:
why not? Does gravity stop acting on a body just because it is moving upwards?

No, I guess gravity is causing it to slow down as it approaches its peak height! Okay I understand that part now, thanks!

I solved for the rebound speed and got 5.91m/s.

e=v'/v
e=5.91/13.30
e=0.44 which comes up as correct!

This turned out to be pretty simple, thanks for helping me understand how to go about it haruspex! :)
 
x2017 said:
No, I guess gravity is causing it to slow down as it approaches its peak height! Okay I understand that part now, thanks!

I solved for the rebound speed and got 5.91m/s.

e=v'/v
e=5.91/13.30
e=0.44 which comes up as correct!

This turned out to be pretty simple, thanks for helping me understand how to go about it haruspex! :)
Well done.

By the way, if you work it symbolically instead of plugging in numbers you will find the relationship between e and the height ratio. You don't actually need to calculate the velocities.
 
nmarryat said:
What is that relationship between e and the height ratio?
How about you try what I suggested, solving the problem but entirely symbolically, i.e. not plugging in any numerical values.
 
  • #10
nmarryat said:
I only need the equation for some extra credit for a class that's not even relevant to my major. But thanks for the sarcasm.
There was no sarcasm, none at all. It was a serious suggestion for what would be far more useful to you than my merely providing an equation.
Indeed, that is how these forums work - we provide hints, corrections, advice, but require the student to show effort. You had effectively asked me to violate forum rules.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K