Predicting Post-Impact Motion of 2D Object

  • Thread starter Thread starter hoang anh tuan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Motion
AI Thread Summary
To predict the post-impact motion of a 2D object like a square, key factors include the angle of impact, pre-impact speeds, and angular velocity. The discussion emphasizes the importance of energy ratios, suggesting that a formula could determine whether the object will bounce or roll based on potential and dissipated energy. It highlights that rolling requires contact points to have zero velocity, which may not occur with a square upon impact. The conversation also mentions the utility of existing physics engines for accurate simulations. Overall, a robust analytical approach is needed to quantify these outcomes effectively.
hoang anh tuan
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I have a question:
How to predict the post-impact motion of an 2D object, for example, a square, whether it will roll or bounce up, after hitting a flat surface. Given that we know the motion of inertia,angle of impact, pre-impact horizontal and vertical speed, angular velocity,? Thanks, the angle of impact a is shown below.
ppp.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Take a cylindrical rod made of glass, say 4 mm cm in diameter and 15 cm long, and let it drop from one meter height onto a massive steel slab.

Then do the same, but with a rod made of rubber.

Do you really need all the things that you mentioned to predict the outcome? What is important then?
 
What i mean is an analytical way of predicting the outcome based on numerical numbers in a form of formula, for example, comparing the ratio of the potential energy with the dissipated energy and having some kind of a bound so when the ratio crosses the bound it's either going to bounce or just roll. That is the question i was having. Thanks
 
So you would have a bogus analytic formula rather than messy truth?
 
I am using this in a program, so it has to quantify in order for me to do anything. I need a general bogus truth :)
 
If you need something bogus, feel free to invent it.

Regarding the more particular question of rolling vs bouncing, rolling by definition means that any contact points of a rolling body must be at zero velocity with whatever they are in contact with. Obviously, when a square's second vertex (per the original picture) collides with the surface, its velocity won't be zero, so the motion will be anything but rolling.
 
I have tried dropping it and sometimes it does not really bounce up but rather just drop down so the angle plays an important role. May be rolling is not the correct term to describe it.
 
hoang anh tuan said:
I am using this in a program, so it has to quantify in order for me to do anything. I need a general bogus truth :)
There are many physics engines available on the net. You can use them in your program, or look at the documentation, or directly at the source code of those which are open source.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top