Repeated Collision: Find Minimum Mass M

  • Thread starter Thread starter peripatein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Collision
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
39 replies · 4K views
haruspex said:
Typo. He meant v1=2Mv0/(M+m)
Thanks haruspex. That was a mistake in algebra, not a typo.

With this correction, the equation for δ becomes:
[tex]\delta=\frac{2Mv_0}{ω(M+m)}sin(ωt)[/tex]
and
[tex]x_1(t)=\frac{Mv_0t}{(M+m)}+\frac{Mv_0}{ω(M+m)}sin(ωt)=\frac{Mv_0}{ω(M+m)}(ωt+sin(ωt))[/tex]
So, if [itex]x_M=\frac{v_0(M-m)t}{(M+m)}[/itex], we get
[tex]\frac{v_0(M-m)t}{(M+m)}=\frac{Mv_0t}{(M+m)}+\frac{Mv_0}{ω(M+m)}sin(ωt)[/tex]
From this, it follows that:
[tex]-mωt=Msin(ωt)[/tex]
An additional relationship is required if M barely catches up with m for a second time. This is that the velocities must match.
[tex]\frac{v_0(M-m)}{(M+m)}=\frac{Mv_0}{(M+m)}+\frac{Mv_0}{(M+m)}cos(ωt)[/tex]
From this, it follows that
[tex]-m=Mcos(ωt)[/tex]
The angle we're looking for is in the third quadrant where cosine and sine are both negative. So, [itex]sin(ωt)=-\sqrt{1-(\frac{m}{M})^2}[/itex]
This is sufficient to solve for the value of M/m that makes good on both these equations.

Chet
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually, I didn't want to bring this up, but you're still wrong as far as I am concerned. Recheck your algebra. I have checked my calculations numerous times and v1 = Mv0/(m+M) not 2Mv0/(m+M).
 
Adding that latter condition, I finally obtained:
tg(x)=x
where x=wt
That gives t~4.49/w
 
peripatein said:
Actually, I didn't want to bring this up, but you're still wrong as far as I am concerned. Recheck your algebra. I have checked my calculations numerous times and v1 = Mv0/(m+M) not 2Mv0/(m+M).
Uh Oh. I check it numerous times too, and got 2Mv0/(m+M). Here is the sequence of steps:

I started with the following:
[tex]v_M=v_0\frac{M-m}{M+m}[/tex]
[tex]v_1=\frac{M(v_0-v_M)}{m}[/tex]

Substituting the first equation into the second equation, I get:
[tex]v_1=\frac{Mv_0}{m}\left(1-\frac{(M-m)}{(M+m)}\right)=\frac{Mv_0}{m}\frac{(M+m)-(M-m)}{(M+m)}=\frac{Mv_0}{m}\frac{2m}{(M+m)}=\frac{2Mv_0}{M+m}[/tex]
I can't see where I made a mistake.
 
I have checked mine several times as well and obtained the following:
vM = (Mv0 - 2mv1)/M
v1 = Mv0/(M+m)
Hence,
vM=v0(M-m)/(M+m)
 
Chestermiller said:
Uh Oh. I check it numerous times too, and got 2Mv0/(m+M). Here is the sequence of steps:

I started with the following:
[tex]v_M=v_0\frac{M-m}{M+m}[/tex]
[tex]v_1=\frac{M(v_0-v_M)}{m}[/tex]

Substituting the first equation into the second equation, I get:
[tex]v_1=\frac{Mv_0}{m}\left(1-\frac{(M-m)}{(M+m)}\right)=\frac{Mv_0}{m}\frac{(M+m)-(M-m)}{(M+m)}=\frac{Mv_0}{m}\frac{2m}{(M+m)}=\frac{2Mv_0}{M+m}[/tex]
I can't see where I made a mistake.

I get the same. peripatein, please post your calculation.
what do you mean by "sketch that"?
Sketching is not the same as solving graphically (which requires an accurate drawing).
I was trying to get you to see that the straight line representing the subsequent motion of M had to be tangential to the curve for the motion of m. This is the same as Chester's observation that the velocities must match as well as the positions, and therefore produces the same equation.
 
I am going to leave it the way it is, so no need to repost. In any case, it doesn't matter much. The physics is the essence.
But thank you very much for your help; I am sincerely grateful! :)