Momentum Conserved? Physics Q&A on 1 kg Cart

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeffxtreme
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Momentum
AI Thread Summary
In the scenario of a 1 kg cart moving at 5 m/s with a 1 kg weight dropped onto it, momentum is conserved during the inelastic collision. The initial momentum of the cart is 5 kg m/s, and after the weight is added, the final velocity of the cart and weight system is calculated to be 2.5 m/s. This deceleration occurs due to the equal and opposite forces acting between the cart and the weight during the collision, which happens over a specific time interval. If the weight were accelerated to match the cart's speed before being placed on it, the final velocity would remain unchanged. Understanding these principles is crucial for applications like safety in car crashes, where impulse and force dynamics play a significant role.
jeffxtreme
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I kind of confused about this physics question.

Assume for example a 1 kg cart is moving at a constant speed of 5 m/s on a frictionless service. Then, a 1 kg weight is dropped onto the cart. Would its initial momentum be conserved? What would be it's final velocity?

At first, the cart has a momentum of 5 kg m /s. If momentum were conserved, its final velocity would be 2.5 m/s. However, I do not really understand this. According to Newton's First Law of Motion, an object will remain in equilibrium unless acted on by an external force. The cart is apparently instantaneously decelerated to 2.5 m/s. How is this possible? What is the external force applied on the cart?

If the cart remained the same velocity (5 m/s before and after the weight was added), then conservation of momentum wouldn't hold.

Any help and insight would be greatly appreciated. It might just be that I don't really understand the laws of motion and momentum. Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You would view this as an inelastic collision. Yes, momentum is conserved. The collision will occur over some amount of time giving you what's called an impulse. force = momentum/time. So, the force between the box and cart acts over some delta time. Equal and opposite means force on box and cart is the same. Since both forces act over the same amount of time, box and cart change momentum by the same amount. force*(delta time) = delta momentum. All we see though is the delta momentum. The specific force and time are unknown in general, and are specific to the properties of the two objects and how they interact (ie large force/small time, small force large time). However, it is important for things like car crashes. If the impact time is small, that means the force is large, which means the people inside the car (or the cart) will probably die. This gives you ways to engineer objects so collisions are "safe".
 
Oh, okay, thanks Longstreet, now I understand. If we assume that the weight is set (not thrown) on the cart, we could say that there is an inelastic collision occurring with the initial velocity of the weight being negligibly small (giving it a negligibly small initial momentum).

Pi = Pf
Pci + Pwi = P(c+w)f
(1 kg)(5 m/s) + 0 = (x m/s)(2 kg)
x = 2.5 m/s

It also makes sense force-wise, the cart is putting force on the weight, speeding the weight up. Meanwhile, the weight is putting an equal and opposite force on the cart, slowing the cart down.

However, if we hadn't set the weight down on the cart, but rather first accelerated it to the same speed as the cart and then set it down, it wouldn't change the final velocity.

Again, thanks for clearing that up.
 
Last edited:
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