Momentum conservation law: Head on elastic collision

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a problem involving a head-on elastic collision between a train and a tennis ball, where the train approaches at 50 m/s and the ball is thrown at -30 m/s. The initial calculations mistakenly suggest the ball's final speed is -30 m/s, but the correct answer is derived as 130 m/s when considering the collision from different reference frames. Participants emphasize the importance of using the train's frame of reference to simplify the problem, noting that the ball's speed relative to the train changes from -80 m/s to +80 m/s post-collision. The conversation highlights the relevance of conservation laws and the Galilean transformation in understanding the mechanics of the collision. Understanding these concepts is crucial for solving similar physics problems effectively.
Biederman
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hi guys,

I've been thinking on a problem for a while which really bothers me. I've been trying to mathematically solve the following problem:

A train approaches the station at a velocity of V=50 m/s. Then a tennis ball is thrown with a velocity U=30 m/s, against the approaching train. Assume that the collision is absolutely elastic.
If the train's velocity after the collision is V=50 m/s, then what is the speed of the ball with respect to the train station?

So, here is my approach to the problem:

From the momentum conservation law and the fact that the train will have the same momentum after the collision, we can write:

MtrainV - mballU = MtrainV + mballUfinal

so it turns out that the velocity of the ball will be:

Ufinal = - U = -30 m/s

Which is incorrect. The correct answer should be:

Ufinal = 2V+U = 130 m/s

Can someone provide a rigorous derivation of the later equation?

Your help will be highly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The easiest way to solve this problem is to do it in the frame of reference of the train. Initially, relative to the train, the ball is traveling -80 m/sec. After the collision, relative to the train, the ball is traveling +80 m/sec. But, relative to the ground, after the collision, the ball is traveling + 130 m/sec.

If you are going to solve the problem from the ground frame of reference, then you need to assume some huge mass for the train (relative to the tennis ball), and satisfy both conservation of momentum and conservation of energy for the combination of ball and train. When you do this, you will find that, in the limit of infinite ratio of train mass to ball mass, you get the same result for Ufinal. Try doing it this way and see what you get.
 
Thanks Chestermiller! I appreciate your help!

I solved the problem using your second suggestion, via Moment. Conser. Law and Energy Conserv. Law.

However, the first method is kind of obscured to me. I would imagine as the train is approaching at +50 m/s and the ball is flying at a -30 m/s towards it, then the net speed of the ball to be +80 m/s. This is (in my opinion) the same case as throwing the ball towards a stationary train with a velocity of -80 m/s. The it would bounce back with velocity + 80 m/s.
I guess I am missing something. Is there any physics book where this kind of stuff are explained? For instance, why we first consider the speed of the ball in a reference frame at the train and then we consider the reference frame of the ground?
 
Biederman said:
Thanks Chestermiller! I appreciate your help!

I solved the problem using your second suggestion, via Moment. Conser. Law and Energy Conserv. Law.

However, the first method is kind of obscured to me. I would imagine as the train is approaching at +50 m/s and the ball is flying at a -30 m/s towards it, then the net speed of the ball to be +80 m/s. This is (in my opinion) the same case as throwing the ball towards a stationary train with a velocity of -80 m/s. The it would bounce back with velocity + 80 m/s.
If the train is traveling 50 m/s relative to the ground, and the ball (after collision) is traveling 80 m/s relative to the train, then the ball is traveling 130 m/s relative to the ground. This is the same thing as when a person riding on the train (i.e., stationary on the train) throws a ball forward at 80 m/s. An observer on the ground measures that the ball is traveling 130 m/s. This is the so-called Galillean transformation, relating velocities measured in different inertial frames of reference. Welcome to the world of inertial frames of reference. You will learn a lot more about it when you study relativity.

It does not matter whether you write down the conservation equations as reckoned by an observer on the ground, or as reckoned by an observer who is moving at a constant velocity relative to the ground. You should get the same answer both ways. So, that being said, I recommend that you redo this problem as reckoned from the frame of reference of an observer who is watching the collision from a car that is traveling parallel to the train with a velocity relative to the ground of 50 m/s. Before the collision, to this observer the train is standing still, and the ball is approaching at 80 m/s. After the collision, the train velocity will be slightly negative relative to this observer, and the tennis ball will be traveling away from the observer at close to 80 m/s. Write down the full momentum and kinetic energy conservation equations as reckoned from the frame of reference of this observer and solve them. I think you will find this exercise very enlightening.

Chet
 
Thanks Chet,

Those very nice examples. I will think on them a bit more carefully!
 
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...
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?
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...
Back
Top