Is the Impact Force Really Twice the Object's Weight?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a mechanical theorem suggesting that a hard object dropped from an infinitesimal height onto a hard surface experiences a force that is twice its weight. This phenomenon, referred to as a "suddenly applied load," is explained through the concept of strain, which can be twice the statically loaded strain under certain conditions. Key assumptions include no energy loss from plastic deformation or heat, and uniform strain throughout the beam. The mechanics involve the mass accelerating and decelerating as it interacts with the beam, leading to a maximum strain that exceeds the equilibrium strain. The conversation highlights the complexities of force, energy, and momentum in collision scenarios.
HoloBarre
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
A weird collision "theorem"

All --

Many moons ago I thought I heard a professor refer to a "theorem" in mechanics which stated that if a hard object is released from an infinitesimal height above a hard surface, the force will be exactly twice the weight of the object.

Did I hear correctly? If so, any ideas on a derivation of this?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Observation: any hard object resting "on" a hard surface would seem to be "released" from an infinitesimal height.

A strange question: do the surface and object hardnesses approach infinity faster than the height approaches zero?

Paradox: for the stated collision to conserve energy and momentum, the surface must approach infinite mass and thus impart a nearly infinite gravitational force to the object, thus implying a nearly infinite object weight.

The above is somewhat speculative, and should not be considered too seriously - but please, share where I err.
 


I think part of the problem is that energy/momentum/collision equations say little or nothing about forces themselves, but only as a force in integrals of Fdt and Fdx. Thus, F by itself is poorly constrained.

However, by making dx, dt, and V all essentially zero, maybe now somehow F is tightlyh constrained or determined.

Toward this end, I took a 25 lb. weight plate, and a large-dial bathroom scale, and weighed the plate. Unsurprisingly, it weighed just about 25 lbs (expensive scale!).

I then "lifted" the plate *just to the point* where the scale again read zero, and then released the plate as abruptly as possible. And bang, the scale momentarily read near 50 lbs... or so I think.

Dropping the plate from just a fraction of an inch higher would send the needle wildly up, but just at the surface the process seemed to give a near-50lb reading.

Could it be me "forcing" a desired result? Possibly.
Could this be the artifact of a spring-loaded scale, with some finite dx?? Possibly, but it seems to me that *something* is in fact going on here, ito the above "theorem".
 


HoloBarre said:
All --

Many moons ago I thought I heard a professor refer to a "theorem" in mechanics which stated that if a hard object is released from an infinitesimal height above a hard surface, the force will be exactly twice the weight of the object.

Did I hear correctly? If so, any ideas on a derivation of this?

Thanks
Hi HoloBarre, welcome to PF,

What you are talking about is called a "suddenly applied load", and it is not the force that is twice the weight, but rather the strain is twice the statically loaded strain. I don't remember the derivation exactly but I do remember that it requires a few assumptions: there are no energy losses due to plastic deformation or heat etc. (energy in gravity, elastic, or kinetic), the beam is not very massive (no change in PE due to beam movement), the strain is uniform throughout the beam, and maybe one or two others I can't remember.

Basically, consider the beam to be a spring (Hookes law). The statically loaded strain is an equilibrium position where the stress exactly balances the weight. When the weight is suddenly applied you see that it is not in equilibrium, the stress is less than the weight, so the mass accelerates and the beam strains. As the beam reaches the equilibrium strain the forces balance, but now the mass has kinetic energy. The mass continues moving and the beam continues straining and now that it is beyond the equilibrium strain the stress is greater than the weight so the mass begins to decelerate. Eventually, the kinetic energy is entirely converted to elastic energy and the beam has reached its maximum strain. This strain is twice the equilibrium strain. The stress is still greater than the weight so the mass will continue to accelerate back up and will vibrate until dissapative forces eventually cause it to come to rest at the equilibrium strain.
 


HoloBarre said:
All --

Many moons ago I thought I heard a professor refer to a "theorem" in mechanics which stated that if a hard object is released from an infinitesimal height above a hard surface, the force will be exactly twice the weight of the object.

Did I hear correctly? If so, any ideas on a derivation of this?

Thanks


Twice the force, half the time?
 
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