Momentum and Kinetic Energy of stationary ball collision

AI Thread Summary
In an elastic collision between a moving ball of mass m and a stationary ball of larger mass, the conservation of momentum and kinetic energy are crucial. When the mass of the stationary ball decreases slightly, the center of mass (CM) velocity increases, allowing the stationary ball to gain more kinetic energy post-collision. The moving ball, which comes to rest when masses are equal, now has a non-zero velocity, resulting in an increase in its kinetic energy as well. The analysis can be simplified geometrically or solved algebraically using the conservation equations. Overall, a slight decrease in the mass of the stationary ball leads to a greater increase in kinetic energy for both balls after the collision.
chrizzle
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
if a ball of mass, m is traveling at v and it hits a stationary ball that is a much larger mass (ignoring air resistance, friction etc.) through algebra how would you show that when the mass of the stationary ball decreases slightly, the total kinetic energy that the stationary ball gains after the collision increases. (it is assumed that it is an elastic collision ie. kinetic energy is conserved)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Write down the equations of both cases and divide them like in a two equations 2 unknowns gig. Might work in this case.
 
It is important to remember the following to understand this solution to the question.
1. We take into consideration, the conservation of momentum, besides kinetic energy (KE) conservation.
2. We assume the collision to be 1D collision; ie, it is a head-on collision and NOT an oblique collision. This assumption avoids the complications that are associated with elastic scatter process, which is not same as elastic collision process.
3. In the center of mass(CM) reference frame, the velocity of CM is zero. each mass changes the sign of its velocity (but not magnitude), after the collision thereby conserving its KE.
4. In the laboratory reference frame (where one of the masses is at rest before collision), CM moves with a velocity equal in magnitude and opposite in sign to that of the velocity with which the mass at rest would move when the collision is viewed in CM frame. (This gives the reason why the mass at rest appears to be at rest in the laboratory frame).

Now the answer to the question:

When the body (say, m2), at rest before collision decreases its mass slightly, the velocity of CM increases slightly (compared to the value it had when the masses were equal), in order that m2 appears to be at rest.

After the collision the velocity of CM remains the same. Velocity of the mass m2 increases (compared to the value it had after the collision when the masses were equal); consequently, KE of m2 increases when its mass decreases.

The other body, (m1) (which came to rest(zero velocity) after the collision when the masses were equal) moves with a non-zero velocity. Consequently, its KE also increases compared to the value it had (zero) when the masses were equal).

The solution is very simple in the geometrical form (and is due to Huygens). The algebraic solution can be obtained by solving the equations of conservation of mass, momentum and KE.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top