Resultant Force Help: Converting m/s to mph

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the physics of inelastic collisions, specifically analyzing the resultant velocity of two NHL players, Kyle and Paul, after a collision. Kyle, weighing 90kg and skating at 5m/s, collides with Paul, who weighs 80kg and skates at 8m/s. The correct resultant velocity post-collision is calculated to be 1.11m/s. The confusion arises when attempting to convert the initial velocities from meters per second (m/s) to miles per hour (mph) and back, highlighting that direct conversion does not yield the same resultant due to the nature of inelastic collisions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of inelastic collisions in physics
  • Knowledge of momentum conservation principles
  • Familiarity with unit conversion between m/s and mph
  • Basic algebra for solving equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of momentum conservation in inelastic collisions
  • Learn about the mathematical derivation of resultant velocities
  • Research unit conversion techniques, specifically between metric and imperial systems
  • Explore practical applications of physics in sports dynamics
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, educators, and sports analysts interested in understanding the mechanics of collisions and the implications of unit conversions in physical calculations.

johnnyapplese
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I was relearning some physics and I came across this problem.

Kyle and Paul, two NHL players, are playing hockey against each other and Kyle checks Paul, on center ice. They hang on to each other so the collision is inelastic. Assume Kyle weighs 90kg and Paul weighs 80kg. Kyle was skating at 5m/s and Paul at 8m/s. They collide head on.

I figured out the answer was 1.11m/s easily enough, but then i wondered if I could convert the m/s into mph and get the same answer but I couldn't get the same answer. My question is why can't you simply convert 8m/s and 5m/s into mph and then later convert it back to get the right answer. I don't see what's wrong with it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can convert to mph and you should get the same answer. You might be making an error in conversion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K