Force of car at 40mph is equivalent to bowling ball at ?

AI Thread Summary
To compare the force of a 2000lb car moving at 40mph with that of an 8lb bowling ball, it's essential to focus on momentum and kinetic energy rather than inertia. The calculations suggest that the bowling ball would need to travel at an impractical speed of 10,000mph to match the car's impact force. The damage caused by each object upon impact depends on their velocity, energy at impact, and contact area. A smaller contact area can lead to higher local stresses and potentially more damage, especially if the impacted material transitions from ductile to brittle deformation. Ultimately, understanding these dynamics requires experimentation and thoughtful analysis rather than straightforward equations.
denver75
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,
Time for me to do another demonstration for some coworkers, and I want to make sure I'm being accurate.

The idea is to explain how much force a small 2000lb car moving at 40mph has, and then explain the speed that an 8lb bowling ball would need to have the same amount of force.


So far I've been looking at P=mv for the inertia. With that formula I get a velocity of 10,000mph for the bowling ball. That seems excessive!

I'd like to figure this out in terms of impact force, because ultimately we're discussing the damage done in an accident.

Any help on what I might want to look at next?
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Velocity has no force associated with it unless there is an impact and in an impact, the force depends on how much distance or time there is for deceleration. The best you can do to discuss how they behave differently in an impact is with momentum (not inertia), which is mv and/or kinetic energy, which is mv^2.
 
You have three initial variables across the two cases:

- velocity
- energy at impact (function of mass and velocity)
- contact area

The damage done to something that your car and your bowling ball hit will be a function of all three. If you peg both objects' kinetic energy upon impact as the same, the ball will obviously be traveling much faster due to its smaller mass. Depending on the strain rate dependency of the object being impacted, you may find that the faster impact may cause more damage due to a transition from ductile to brittle deformation, or an increase in material stiffness leading to a higher impact force being experienced. In addition, the area over which the kinetic energy is input into the structure will determine damage, as local stresses will be higher the smaller the area.

As Russ says, the best you can consider is the equivalent speed the ball must be traveling at to achieve the same kinetic energy or initial momentum upon impact. Unfortunately it's not an area that can be readily described by equations, but requires a degree of experimentation and/or thought work (as in you know you'd rather be hit by a bowling ball traveling at 30 mph than a car traveling at 30 mph and you can roughly explain why, but you haven't enough information to even begin estimating impact forces or damage).
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top