Question about the validity of Coefficient of Restitution

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the validity of the Coefficient of Restitution (CoR) as a metric for measuring the bounciness of objects, specifically the interaction between two materials, such as rubber and steel. It is established that CoR is a property dependent on both objects involved, making it challenging to definitively compare the bounciness of two separate objects without considering their interactions on various surfaces. The conversation emphasizes that while CoR serves as a rough approximation, the concept of bounciness should be more nuanced, potentially involving complex formulae that reflect the chaotic interplay of physical properties. The analogy of objects as imperfect springs with distinct spring constants during deformation and relaxation is introduced to further explore this relationship.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Coefficient of Restitution (CoR)
  • Basic principles of physics related to elasticity and material properties
  • Familiarity with spring constants and their role in deformation
  • Knowledge of chaotic systems and their implications in physical interactions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical derivation of CoR in terms of spring constants
  • Explore the relationship between CoR and energy loss in elastic collisions
  • Investigate the effects of surface materials on CoR and bounciness
  • Study chaotic systems in physics to understand their impact on material interactions
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, materials scientists, and engineers interested in the dynamics of elastic collisions and the properties of materials in motion.

Tyrone Sawyer
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Specifically as to the validity of CoR as a metric for the bounciness of an object. CoR is inherently a property of /two/ objects, say, the interaction between rubber and steel. Is it truly the case that given two objects, it's impossible to say that one object is bouncier than another? This is a topic for which I really can't find many people talking, likely because it's boring, useless, but also sort of easy.

My intuition tells me that if you have two objects, and two surfaces, than if object A bounces better than object B on surface C, than it should bounce better on surface D as well. Further, it should bounce better on /all/ surfaces.

My understanding is that CoR is really a very rough approximation of a whole bunch of chaotic interplay between systems, but my intuition strongly tells me that there should be a notion of bounciness; even if it can't necessarily be used to trace back to CoR without complex formulae, whatever those formulae are, they should be monotone increasing.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Tyrone Sawyer said:
Specifically as to the validity of CoR as a metric for the bounciness of an object. CoR is inherently a property of /two/ objects, say, the interaction between rubber and steel. Is it truly the case that given two objects, it's impossible to say that one object is bouncier than another? This is a topic for which I really can't find many people talking, likely because it's boring, useless, but also sort of easy.

My intuition tells me that if you have two objects, and two surfaces, than if object A bounces better than object B on surface C, than it should bounce better on surface D as well. Further, it should bounce better on /all/ surfaces.

My understanding is that CoR is really a very rough approximation of a whole bunch of chaotic interplay between systems, but my intuition strongly tells me that there should be a notion of bounciness; even if it can't necessarily be used to trace back to CoR without complex formulae, whatever those formulae are, they should be monotone increasing.
Think of each object as an imperfect spring. That is, each has two spring constants: a larger one during deformation (compression in this case) and a smaller one during relaxation (decompression).
See if you can derive the CoR for the combination in terms of those four constants.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
14K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
107K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K