Inelastic collisions with constant momentum

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of kinetic energy in inelastic collisions, specifically questioning why the expected answer of 1/2 mv² is not achieved. Participants agree that the book's phrasing about "identical objects" may be misleading, as only objects of the same mass are necessary for the calculations. The conversation highlights the importance of clarity in terminology, suggesting that "identical objects" could imply additional conditions like equal charges. The confusion stems from the interpretation of the problem, particularly regarding the reference to "the same two objects" from a previous question. Overall, the dialogue emphasizes the need for precise language in physics texts to avoid misunderstandings.
haha0p1
Messages
46
Reaction score
9
Homework Statement
The total momentum before the collision in an inelastic collisions is 0, but the total kinetic energy before the collision is 1/2mv². Calculate how the total kinetic energy before collision is 1/2mv².
Relevant Equations
Ek=1/2mv²
Kinetic energy before collision =1/2 mv² + 1/2 mv² = mv² (since energy is a scalar quantity, the direction does not matter). Kindly tell why am I not getting the required answer i.e: 1/2 mv². Am I doing the calculation wrong?
IMG_20230102_154827.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

I agree with your calculation. An unfortunate error in the book.

##\ ##
 
It's interesting that the book specifies the "same object" or "identical" objects, where all that is required kinematically is objects of the same mass!
 
PeroK said:
It's interesting that the book specifies the "same object" or "identical" objects, where all that is required kinematically is objects of the same mass!
Truee
 
PeroK said:
It's interesting that the book specifies the "same object" or "identical" objects, where all that is required kinematically is objects of the same mass!
I think it's economy of words. "Identical objects" is shorter than "objects of the same mass" and conveys the idea of symmetry. "Identical" becomes relatively conciser when the masses also carry equal charges.
 
PeroK said:
It's interesting that the book specifies the "same object"
No, it says "the same two objects". Presumably the same two as in the preceding question.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top