Simple 2D collision formula developments

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the new speeds and angles of two identical balls colliding elastically. The original poster seeks assistance in deriving a formula for the post-collision velocities and angles, as they are struggling with the concepts involved. A suggestion is made to use the center of mass frame to simplify the calculations before transforming back to the original frame. The poster expresses a desire for a straightforward formula rather than a detailed explanation of the underlying physics. Overall, the conversation highlights the challenge of applying theoretical concepts to practical programming needs in collision physics.
AdamAlon
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi everybody,
I am currently working on a small computer programming project, and was wondering if you could give me hand.

Say I have two simple, identical balls moving in different speeds and angles towards each other. They hit each other elastically, and weigh exactly the same.
The location of their centers is also a given (see diagram for further explanation).

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/1108/question.png

All the data is according to the diagram (which is completely general).
Can I tell through some sort of formula developments what their new speeds (size+angle) will be, after they collide? (As in U1=?, U2=?, newA1=?, newA2=?)

I tried figuring it out myself but got mixed-up and lost. Hopefully you might be able to help me :-)

Thanks a lot,

Adam
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Oh sure. I actually had to do this myself for a computer game we made for a class project. I don't know the equations but you can get a simple closed form expression for it. I'm sure if you do enough searching on the web or through textbooks you will find out what it is. Of course in the end you could always derive it.
 
Born2bwire said:
Oh sure. I actually had to do this myself for a computer game we made for a class project. I don't know the equations but you can get a simple closed form expression for it. I'm sure if you do enough searching on the web or through textbooks you will find out what it is. Of course in the end you could always derive it.

Yeah, I figured it was rather simple, but I can't seem to find anything of that sort anywhere.
A closed form expression would be fantastic, but I am having a hard time deriving it myself. Thus, I turned to you guys for assistance :)
So, can any of you give me a hand?
 
Transform to the center of mass frame in which the total momentum is zero. Forget about the angles and velocities in the original frame for the moment. Just work out the most general case of a collision as seen in the center of mass frame (which is very simple).

Then transform this to a frame in which the initial velocities are arbitrary. You need to do a little algebra to find the angles in that other frame.
 
Count Iblis said:
Transform to the center of mass frame in which the total momentum is zero. Forget about the angles and velocities in the original frame for the moment. Just work out the most general case of a collision as seen in the center of mass frame (which is very simple).

Then transform this to a frame in which the initial velocities are arbitrary. You need to do a little algebra to find the angles in that other frame.

Sorry, I sort of lost you. I am yet to have studied momentum, and I tried to understand momentum from guides I have read.
Could you just give me a finished formula? I do not necessarily need to thoroughly understand the way...
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Back
Top