Three masses elastic collision

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the after-collision velocities of three identical spheres during an elastic collision, where two spheres strike a stationary third sphere. Participants emphasize the importance of conservation laws and suggest using symmetry equations to determine the final velocities, particularly in the laboratory reference frame. The center of mass frame is also mentioned as a simpler approach, where initial and final energies remain equal and velocities simply change signs. Clarification is sought on the term "immobile," confirming it refers to the sphere being initially motionless rather than having infinite mass. The conversation highlights the complexities of elastic collisions involving multiple bodies and the need for precise definitions in physics problems.
luckis11
Messages
272
Reaction score
2
Elastic collision. I cannot find the after collision velocities (quantity and direction), when 2 spheres strike an immobile sphere. All three of them have the same shape and volume, and the same mass (say e.g. 1 kg each). The two moving ones move parallel to each other with the same velocity u, and during their movement their center is on the same axis, vertical to the axis of their velocity. So at the first moment of the collision, the centres of the three spheres form an equilateral tringle. A link would be very helpful too.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
luckis11 said:
Elastic collision. I cannot find the after collision velocities (quantity and direction), when 2 spheres strike an immobile sphere. All three of them have the same shape and volume, and the same mass (say e.g. 1 kg each). The two moving ones move parallel to each other with the same velocity u, and during their movement their center is on the same axis, vertical to the axis of their velocity. So at the first moment of the collision, the centres of the three spheres form an equilateral triangle. A link would be very helpful too.

I think that the energy-mimentum conservation laws are insufficient to determine the final vectors in general case. In your case you can add the equations of symmetry: the still sphere should move along one axis, so the other velocity components are zero. The bounced spheres should have equal velocity modules after collision. Maybe these additional equations will fix the liberty in your variables and lead to an unambiguous answer. It concerns the problem in the laboratory reference frame.

In the center of inertia frame everything is much simpler: the initial and final energies are equal, and the velocities change simply their signs.

Bob.
 
Bob_for_short said:
In the center of inertia frame everything is much simpler: the initial and final energies are equal, and the velocities change simply their signs.

Yes, do it in the centre of mass frame :smile:
 
I don't see how the center of mass idea helps here. If the third sphere is immobile, then it's easiest to do it in the frame where that sphere has no velocity.
 
Oh, wait, does immobile here not mean "unable to move"? Does it mean simply "initially motionless"?

I'd normally think of an immobile sphere as having infinite mass, but the problem statement says all three spheres have the same mass. So, if that's the case, then yeah, center of mass makes sense to me now. Can you clarify a bit what you mean by "immobile," luckis11?
 
By "immobile" I meant that its velocity was zero before the collision.
 
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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