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

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the coefficient of restitution for a ball dropped from a height of 9.02 m that rebounds to a height of 1.78 m. Participants explore the relationship between the heights and the velocities involved in the bounce, focusing on the physics concepts of motion under gravity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of the coefficient of restitution formula and question the correct application of kinematic equations. There is exploration of how to relate the heights to the velocities and the effects of gravity on the motion of the ball.

Discussion Status

The conversation has progressed with some participants successfully calculating the rebound speed and the coefficient of restitution. However, there are still questions regarding the proper use of equations and the implications of gravity during the rebound phase. Guidance has been offered on the correct application of kinematic principles.

Contextual Notes

Participants express confusion over the signs in the equations and the relationship between the downward and upward motion of the ball. There is also mention of homework constraints that require showing effort and understanding rather than simply receiving answers.

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
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K