Ping Pong ball through a bowling ball

  • Thread starter Thread starter DrSammyD
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ball Bowling
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the speed necessary for a ping pong ball to penetrate a bowling ball, one must consider factors like momentum conservation and internal forces that cause deformation upon impact. The discussion highlights that while a ping pong ball can theoretically penetrate a bowling ball at a high enough speed, it is unlikely to remain undamaged due to the energy transfer during the collision. The analogy of a karate expert breaking bricks illustrates that speed and energy distribution are crucial; too slow an impact can result in injury, while sufficient speed allows for penetration without immediate damage. The conversation emphasizes the importance of applying physics principles rigorously to understand these interactions. Ultimately, the complexities of soft body physics reveal that while penetration is possible, the ping pong ball will likely sustain damage in the process.
DrSammyD
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
What information would I need in order to calculate the speed necessary to go through a bowling ball, and how would I calculate it. Also, is there a speed that is fast enough that that ping pong ball doesn't get demolished? (such as the front of the ball having enough energy in itself to go through the bowling ball such that the back of the ball doesn't expend any energy going through it because there is already a hole in it?)

This isn't a homework question, it's just something I'm wondering about soft body physics.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
But the front of the pingpong ball will be slowed up a bit on impact because of Momentum conservation, however fast it's going. That will involve an internal force within the ball, which will cause deformation, surely. If it damages the bowling ball, then how could you suggest that the pingpong ball could ever be unscathed? What if the bowling ball were fired at the pingpong ball? In the observational frame of the centre of mass of the two together, it would be the same situation.
There would, of course, be a speed at which the pingpong ball would 'penetrate' through the bowling ball - but it would come out of the other side in a sorry state.
 
Well I'm thinking of when a karate expert punches through a bunch of bricks, and doesn't hurt his hand, but if he goes two slow, he can break his hand because he hasn't punched through the bricks and all of that energy is immediately put back into his hand instead of over the course of time of the breaking.
 
There must be a lot more to the Karate situation. I think my simple argument shows what happens in the ping pong ball situation.
In Karate there is a lot of strength and psychology involved but there are clear limits to what can actually be achieved. You still need to apply the Physics rigorously to the situation.
 
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