Momentum: Same for 200lb Barbell vs Rubber Bands?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron77
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Momentum
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of momentum, specifically comparing a 200 lb barbell to rubber bands providing the same resistance during a bench press. The key point is that momentum is defined as mass times velocity (p = mv), leading to the conclusion that the barbell, with its greater mass, will have significantly more momentum than the rubber bands, despite both providing the same resistance at a given velocity. The participants agree that the rubber bands would result in almost zero momentum, as they do not possess the same inertial properties as a physical weight. Additionally, the conversation highlights the difference between constant and variable forces, noting that the rubber bands provide a variable force while the barbell's mass is constant. Overall, the understanding of momentum in this context favors the traditional physics definition over alternative interpretations.
Ron77
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi Folks,

Question on momentum.

I have been talking with someone who is more educated than I, especially in math, but they are saying something that just doesn't make sense to me. I do realize that physics doesn't always make 'sense' so thought I'd ask on here. He said I would need calculus to understand why, but the answer, almost seems intuitive...

Here it is..

He says that both of these will have the same momentum even though one has about 20 times the mass of the other and V is the same.

1) A person laying on their back does a bench press exercise with a real barbell weighing 200 lbs at a certain velocity

2) Another person laying on their back does a bench press exercise at the same velocity, but the resistance is provided by rubber bands that provide 200 lbs of downward tension. (like a Soloflex exercise machine)

I am thinking that number 2 will have almost zero momentum. It seems that no matter how fast you moved your arms, if you stopped, the 10 pound bar with the bands attached would 'stick to your hands' so to speak, but an actual weight would have the tendency to 'keep in motion' moreso.

Also, I read that the definition of momentum is on the order of how hard it is to change the direction of an object. One could easily reverse the direction from traveling upward to downward if tension is provided by elastic materials, but if provided by a real weight with mass, it would be harder to change from upwards, to a downward movement... right?



Thanks,
Ron
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ron77 said:
I am thinking that number 2 will have almost zero momentum. It seems that no matter how fast you moved your arms, if you stopped, the 10 pound bar with the bands attached would 'stick to your hands' so to speak, but an actual weight would have the tendency to 'keep in motion' moreso.
Your thinking is correct. So how does your friend define momentum if not mass times velocity?
 
krab said:
Your thinking is correct. So how does your friend define momentum if not mass times velocity?

I'm not sure, he said "Your using that formula?" Then said I needed to understand calculus for him to explain.
The only thing that throws me is he's one of the smartest and most knowledgeable people I've ever met, so if we differ, I always assume he's right and I'm wrong.
This one just bugged me as I am usually far above average with mechanical and spatial problems, and I could almost 'feel' how momentum would be by just thinking about it..
 
Well, there is an equivalence between the two.

Define momentum as p = m v, where m is mass of the object in motion and v is the velocity.

But what is m, or rather the effect of m?

Let's define m as F/g, or the force, F, divided by the local gravitational acceleration.

Then p = F/g v.

F can be provided by mg or kx, where k = spring constant and x is the displacement, so if one could devise a way so that F/g = kx over the range of x, then they would have the same effective momentum.

so one could also say p = (kx/g) v.

As far as the person doing the work there is no difference.

In reality though, kx provides a variable force F, whereas mg is constant. I am not familiar with Soloflex and other systems so I am not sure show they compensate for this.
 
youre mathematically inclined friend is not in touch with physics
you re thinking is more correct than his.
 
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