Internal and center of mass energies

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves an object with kinetic energy K that explodes into two pieces, each moving with twice the speed of the original object. Participants are tasked with comparing the internal and center-of-mass energies after the explosion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the conservation of energy in the context of an explosion and question the validity of equating the original kinetic energy to the sum of the final kinetic energies of the two pieces.
  • Some participants explore the concept of energy in the center-of-mass frame and its implications before and after the explosion.
  • There is a focus on defining internal kinetic energy and center-of-mass kinetic energy, as well as the relationship between them.
  • Questions arise regarding the definition of relative velocities and their significance in the context of the center of mass.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights and questioning assumptions. Some participants have offered guidance on the definitions of kinetic energies involved, while others are exploring different interpretations of the problem. There is no explicit consensus yet, but productive lines of inquiry are being pursued.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the problem, including the implications of energy conservation in explosions and the definitions of kinetic energy in different frames of reference. There are also mentions of potential errors in reasoning and the need for clarity in the mathematical expressions used.

negation
Messages
817
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



An object with kinetic energy K explodes into two pieces, each of which moves with twice the speed of the original object.


Compare the internal and center-of-mass energies after the explosion.

The Attempt at a Solution



Let K1 be the kinetic energy of the main object before the explosion. k2 and k3 be the kinetic energies after explosion.

K1 = k2 + k3

Let K1 = 0.5m1v12 = K

Then

0.5m1v12 = 0.5m2v22 + 0.5m3v32

and since each pieces has twice the velocity of the original piece befor explosion

0.5m1v2 = 0.5m2(2v)2 + 0.5m3(2v)2

∴ 0.5m1v2 = 0.5(4v2)(m2+m3)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
negation said:

Homework Statement



An object with kinetic energy K explodes into two pieces, each of which moves with twice the speed of the original object.


Compare the internal and center-of-mass energies after the explosion.

The Attempt at a Solution



Let K1 be the kinetic energy of the main object before the explosion. k2 and k3 be the kinetic energies after explosion.

K1 = k2 + k3

Let K1 = 0.5m1v12 = K

Then

0.5m1v12 = 0.5m2v22 + 0.5m3v32

and since each pieces has twice the velocity of the original piece befor explosion

0.5m1v2 = 0.5m2(2v)2 + 0.5m3(2v)2

∴ 0.5m1v2 = 0.5(4v2)(m2+m3)
I am not following what you are doing. You seem to be equating the original kinetic energy to the sum of the final kinetic energies of the two parts? Why would k1 = k2 + k3?

Think of the problem this way: In the frame of reference of the centre of mass does the body have any energy before the explosion? How about after?

AM
 
Andrew Mason said:
I am not following what you are doing. You seem to be equating the original kinetic energy to the sum of the final kinetic energies of the two parts? Why would k1 = k2 + k3?

Think of the problem this way: In the frame of reference of the centre of mass does the body have any energy before the explosion? How about after?

AM

I equate them because the total energy is the sum of the KE of each particle.

However, I may be wrong.

I think it's good to ask what internal kinetic energy is and what center of mass kinetic enegry is and why kint + kcm = Ktotal
 
Andrew Mason said:
I am not following what you are doing. You seem to be equating the original kinetic energy to the sum of the final kinetic energies of the two parts? Why would k1 = k2 + k3?

Think of the problem this way: In the frame of reference of the centre of mass does the body have any energy before the explosion? How about after?

AM

What's the definition of the frame of reference of the center of mass?
 
The problem asks the center-of-mass energy and the internal energy after the explosion. I do not see any of them in your post.

I see, you assumed conservation of energy. It is not true in an explosion.

ehild
 
ehild said:
The problem asks the center-of-mass energy and the internal energy after the explosion. I do not see any of them in your post.

I see, you assumed conservation of energy. It is not true in an explosion.

ehild
Where can we go from here?

Ktotal = \sum0.5mivcm2 + \sum0.5mivirel2 + \summivirelvcm

Edit: why is a particle relative velocity to COM zero?
 
Last edited:
kint = 0.5m1vcm = m1vcm2
there are 2 pieces so 2m1vcm^2
kint/kcm = 4 but the answer is 3.

I spent 4 hrs on this. It's not going anywhere and very agonizing/
 
The CoM will travel with the same velocity as before the explosion, as the forces are internal. So the center-of mass KE is the same as the initial KE:

KECoM=1/2 m1v12
.

If m2 and m3 are the masses after the explosion, and m2+m3=m1, the total KE is

KE(total)=1/2 (m2v12+m3v32=2v12m1
.


The internal energy is the difference between the total energy and the energy of the translation of the CoM:

KE(internal)= KE(total)-KE(CoM)

So what is the ratio KEi/KE(CoM)?

ehild
 
ehild said:
The CoM will travel with the same velocity as before the explosion, as the forces are internal. So the center-of mass KE is the same as the initial KE:

KECoM=1/2 m1v12
.

If m2 and m3 are the masses after the explosion, and m2+m3=m1, the total KE is

KE(total)=1/2 (m2v12+m3v32=2v12m1
.


The internal energy is the difference between the total energy and the energy of the translation of the CoM:

KE(internal)= KE(total)-KE(CoM)

So what is the ratio KEi/KE(CoM)?

ehild
I have managed to solve it by drawing it out and using geometry. However, one question persist when I attempt to derive K= Kint + Kcm.

Why is \sum mivirel2 = 0?
 
  • #10
Are vi rel the relative velocities with respect to the CoM? How did you get that ∑ mivirel2 = 0? It is certainly wrong. What are the relative velocities? The pieces move in opposite directions, and have different masses. The velocity of one piece is v2=2v1, its relative velocity with respect to the CoM is v2rel=v1.
The other piece has velocity v3=-2v1. Its relative velocity is -2v1-v1=-3v1.

ehild
 
Last edited:
  • #11
ehild said:
Are vi rel the relative velocities with respect to the CoM? How did you get that ∑ mivirel2 = 0? What are the relative velocities? ehild

Yes

My initial premise is

K = \sum0.5 mivi2

but vi = (vcm + virel) (it would be great if someone can give me an intuitive sense of why vi = (vcm + virel)

then we have K = \sum0.5mi(virel+vcm).(vcm+virel)

= \sum0.5mivcm2 + \summivcm . virel2 + \sum mivirel2

and then the book states \summivcm.virel = 0 because virel = 0 since it is the particle's velocity relative to the COM.
Unsure what this means.
 
  • #12
negation said:
Yes

My initial premise is

K = \sum0.5 mivi2

but vi = (vcm + virel) (it would be great if someone can give me an intuitive sense of why vi = (vcm + virel)

then we have K = \sum0.5mi(virel+vcm).(vcm+virel)= \sum0.5mivcm2 + \summivcm . virel2 + \sum mivirel2

and then the book states \summivcm.virel = 0 because virel = 0 since it is the particle's velocity relative to the COM.
Unsure what this means.

I edited my previous post, read it.

Your formula is wrong. There is no square in the second term.

Recall how the CoM is defined.
The velocity of the CoM is VCoM=(∑mivi)/∑mi.

Virel=Vi-VCoM. Virel is not zero, but ∑miVirel=0

ehild
 
Last edited:
  • #13
ehild said:
I edited my previous post, read it.

Your formula is wrong. There is no square in the second term.

Recall how the CoM is defined.
The velocity of the CoM is VCoM=(∑mivi)/∑mi.

Virel=Vi-VCoM. Virel is not zero, but ∑miVirel=0

ehild

The square was a typo. It's hard to see what is going on with all the brackets when using tex.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K