Kinetic energy of N solid bodies

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the calculation of kinetic energy for N solid bodies, specifically addressing the absence of the (1/2) factor in the kinetic energy formula presented in a book. The kinetic energy difference is expressed as ∑_{i=1}^{N}m_{i}(v_{i}'^{2}-v_{i}^{2}), leading to confusion regarding the missing factor. Participants conclude that the omission is likely a typo, but it does not affect the overall calculations since it is consistently absent from both sides of the equations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of classical mechanics, particularly kinetic energy concepts.
  • Familiarity with mathematical summation notation.
  • Basic knowledge of solid body dynamics.
  • Ability to interpret physics equations and their implications.
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of kinetic energy formulas in classical mechanics.
  • Study the implications of omitting constants in physical equations.
  • Examine examples of energy conservation in systems with multiple bodies.
  • Learn about the role of assumptions in physics problem-solving.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators teaching mechanics, and anyone interested in understanding the nuances of kinetic energy calculations in multi-body systems.

Oddbio
Gold Member
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
This is a fairly simple question so I wasn't sure if it belongs here, but it is not a homework question. Just a question on something I'm reading.

The book says there are N solid bodies with initial speed vi (i=1, 2, 3, ..., N)
and final speed vi' after some shock to the system.

The book then says that the difference in kinetic energy is:
[tex]\sum_{i=1}^{N}m_{i}(v_{i}'^{2}-v_{i}^{2})[/tex]

But my question is, where did the (1/2) factor go from the kinetic energy?

I was even wondering if this has something to do with combining the sum for initial and final kinetic energies into a single script, but if I write the sum out using "j" for initial and "i" for final in the sums it comes out to be what they have but with a (1/2)... like I think it should.
Am I supposed to assume that this is just a typo? Even though several calculations are performed from that equation following its appearance.
I can't see any reason why it would be missing.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Oddbio! :smile:
Oddbio said:
But my question is, where did the (1/2) factor go from the kinetic energy?

Am I supposed to assume that this is just a typo? Even though several calculations are performed from that equation following its appearance.
I can't see any reason why it would be missing.

Typo (or laziness of the author)! :rolleyes:

I assume that it makes no difference to the calculations because it's missing from both sides of every equation.

But the author still shouldn't leave it out without warning. :frown:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 138 ·
5
Replies
138
Views
9K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
6K