Is Newton's Law of Restitution Accurate for Eccentric Impacts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aim1732
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law Newton's law
AI Thread Summary
Newton's law of restitution is typically applied to point objects, but its application to eccentric impacts raises questions regarding the consideration of velocities. The discussion highlights a divergence in understanding, with some suggesting that the velocities of the centers of mass of extended bodies should be used instead of contact point velocities. Clarification indicates that for eccentric collisions, the normal components of contact velocities should be used. The consensus appears to support the original understanding of applying the law to contact points rather than centers of mass. This distinction is crucial for accurately analyzing eccentric impacts in collisions.
aim1732
Messages
428
Reaction score
2
I have used Newton's law of restitution without problem in collisions between point objects but there seems to be a problem in its application in eccentric impacts.
I have always thought it is applied to points on rigid extended bodies that come in contact during the collision for eccentric collisions.[applied here implying their velocities are considered in the equation--
(-velocity of separation/velocity of approach) = e ]
But I recently came across suggestions on this forum that velocities of centres of mass of the extended objects is to be considered instead. Am I getting it wrong? Regrets if I am asking a stupid question...
For reference here is the link to the thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=435457"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
aim1732 said:
I have used Newton's law of restitution without problem in collisions between point objects but there seems to be a problem in its application in eccentric impacts.
I have always thought it is applied to points on rigid extended bodies that come in contact during the collision for eccentric collisions.[applied here implying their velocities are considered in the equation--
(-velocity of separation/velocity of approach) = e ]
But I recently came across suggestions on this forum that velocities of centres of mass of the extended objects is to be considered instead. Am I getting it wrong?
I'd say that you are correct, as long as you mean the normal components of the contact velocities. (I haven't looked at that thread.) You'd only use the velocities of the centers of mass for point objects.
 
I'd say that you are correct, as long as you mean the normal components of the contact velocities.
Yes I meant the normal components.

Thanks a lot!
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Newton's Third Law: Action & Reaction Along the Line Connecting Two Objects
Replies
5
Views
1K
Insights How to Apply Newton’s Second Law to Variable Mass Systems
Replies
0
Views
2K
I 1st law of Newton as a special case of the 2nd law (historical aspect)
Replies
10
Views
3K
B Newton’s second law as one complete law
Replies
27
Views
2K
Is Newton's Law of Gravity Still Accurate Despite Einstein's Discoveries?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Is Newton's third law valid for rotation / Torque?
Replies
23
Views
4K
A Impact considerations
Replies
4
Views
855
B Why is KE not conserved when momentum is?
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
I Question about Momentum vs. Kinetic Energy vs. Deforming In Collisions
Replies
2
Views
2K
Confused about Newton's 3rd law
Replies
22
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top