Resulting velocity of 2 particles

  • Thread starter Thread starter disclaimer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particles Velocity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the resulting velocities of two particles following a collision, focusing on the application of conservation of momentum and energy principles. Participants analyze calculations related to the velocities and energy conversions, while also addressing discrepancies between their results and those provided by a teacher.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents calculations for the resulting velocities of two particles using conservation laws, arriving at specific numerical results.
  • Another participant confirms the calculations for one of the velocities and asserts that the teacher's solution is incorrect due to a violation of conservation of energy.
  • A participant identifies a potential error in the teacher's calculations related to unit conversion from foot-pounds to Newton-meters, suggesting that correcting this leads to results aligning more closely with the teacher's answers.
  • Discussion includes a critique of unit notation and conventions, with participants pointing out various mistakes in how units were presented in the original problem.
  • Some participants express confusion regarding the use of pound-force and pound-mass, highlighting the complexities in unit conversions relevant to the problem.
  • Further clarification is provided regarding the correct units for work and flexibility, emphasizing the importance of proper unit representation in physics problems.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the correctness of the teacher's solution, with some asserting it is incorrect while others suggest that the teacher's results could be valid under different assumptions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the definitive correctness of the calculations and the teacher's approach.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings in unit conversions, assumptions about energy values, and the need for clarity in unit notation. The discussion does not resolve these issues, leaving them open for further exploration.

disclaimer
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
[solved] resulting velocity of 2 particles

Homework Statement



mc809l.jpg



Homework Equations



conservation of momentum

m_Av_A'=m_Bv_B'

v_A'=\frac{m_B}{m_A}v_B'

conservation of energy

V=\frac{1}{2}m_A(v_A')^2+\frac{1}{2}m_B(v_B')^2=\frac{1}{2}m_A\left(\frac{m_B}{m_A}v_B'\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}m_B(v_B')^2

v_B'=\sqrt{\frac{2m_AV}{m_B(m_A+m_B)}}

The Attempt at a Solution



m_A=0.9Kg

m_B=1.35Kg

V=1.35Nm

v_B'=\sqrt{\frac{2\cdot0.9\cdot1.35}{1.35(0.9+1.35)}}=\sqrt{0.8}\approx{0.8944[m/s]}

v_A'=\frac{1.35}{0.9}\cdot0.8944=1.3416[m/s]

nqejyd.jpg


from the law of cosines

v_B=\sqrt{6^2+0.8944^2-2\cdot6\cdot0.8944\cdot\cos{60^o}}\approx5.607[m/s]

from the law of sines

\sin{\beta}=\frac{\sin{60^o}\cdot0.8944}{5.607}\approx0.1381

\beta\approx7.94^o

As you can see that result is totally different from the solution given by my teacher. I also get different results for the other velocity. So either my calculations are incorrect or my teacher gave us wrong results. I'll be grateful for any help, thank you.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
disclaimer: Nice work. Your answer for vB, 5.6066 m/s at -7.9413 deg, is correct. The solution of your teacher is wrong.

We can see that the solution of your teacher is impossible, because in the solution of your teacher, the final kinetic energy of particle A greatly exceeds the total initial energy of the system, which would violate conservation of energy.
 
Thanks for your reply, nvn. Actually I figured out where my teacher made a mistake. Obviously he didn't multiply 1.35Nm by 20 while converting the unit from ft*lb.

1{ft}\cdot{lb}\approx1.355817456Nm

That said, if I assume the potential energy to be 27Nm, then my results are almost the same as those given by my teacher.
 
I interpreted what you wrote as meaning, "Obviously, he didn't multiply 20 ft*lbf by 1.35582 N*m/(ft*lbf) while converting from ft*lbf."

By the way, you and/or your teacher made some mistakes writing unit symbols.
(1) There should always be a space between the numeric value and its following unit symbol. E.g., 6 m/s, not 6m/s.
(2) N*m needs to have an intervening space or symbol, not Nm.
(3) The unit symbol for kilogram is spelled kg, not Kg (whereas Kg would mean something like kelvin-gram).
(4) ft*lb should be ft*lbf, whereas lb means pound mass (lbm).
(5) [m/s] should be m/s, whereas [m/s] implies dimensional analysis, which uses different symbols than the unit symbols.

See international standard for writing units[/color]; i.e., ISO 31-0[/color]. See NIST[/color] for the correct spelling of any unit symbol.
 
Last edited:
Frankly, I've only seen lb for both force and mass used in books. It always seemed quite confusing to me.
 
Good point. And lbf versus lbm makes a difference in mathematics applications (or at least some mathematics applications), not to mention lbm is an incoherent physical unit, and can't be used as-is for this problem, as it would need to be converted to slugs.

And here is one more mistake by your teacher.
(6) ft/lbf is a unit of flexibility, not work; work is ft*lbf, or N*m, or J.

I know you caught that one. Also, in all the examples I typed in this thread, the asterisk can instead be a half-high dot, if available.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K