Triangle Problem Homework: Solving for Ball Speed After Collision

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fusilli_Jerry89
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Triangle
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving a collision between two bowling balls, focusing on the calculation of the speed of the first ball after the collision. The context includes momentum conservation and vector analysis in a two-dimensional plane.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the law of sines to determine angles in a triangle formed by momentum vectors. There are questions about the validity of the angles calculated and the overall setup of the triangle. Some participants express confusion regarding the relationship between momentum and speed, while others suggest focusing on vector components instead of angles.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different methods to approach the problem. Some have provided guidance on resolving vectors into components, while others have expressed curiosity about the discrepancies in angle calculations. There is no explicit consensus on the best method, but multiple lines of reasoning are being examined.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of a homework assignment, which may limit the information available and the methods they can use. There is also a noted confusion regarding the graphical representation of the problem and its implications for the calculations being performed.

Fusilli_Jerry89
Messages
158
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A bowling ball mass 3.2 kg rolls west at 4.2 m/s striking a stationary ball mass 3.2 kg. After the collision the second ball travels in a direction 24 degrees south of west at 3.6 m/s. Whats the first balls speed after the collision.


Homework Equations


mv+mv=mv+mv


The Attempt at a Solution


p1=13.44 kgm/s W
p2=0
p1'=?
p2'=11.52 kgm/s 24 degrees south of west

13.44 W - 11.52 24 S of W = p1'
I then drew the resulting vectors and subtracted them getting a triangle with the lengths 13.44, 11.52, and 5.52 with an angle of 24 degrees between 13.44 and 11.52. My question is that when i use sine law to get the two remaining angles, all the angles only add up to 160 degrees. What's the deal here? (I got the length of the last angle via: x^2=13.44^2+11.52^2-2(13.44)(11.52)cos24)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fusilli_Jerry89 said:
(I got the length of the last angle via: x^2=13.44^2+11.52^2-2(13.44)(11.52)cos24)

You probably meant, you got the length of the third side of the triangle, i.e. x should represent the magnitude of the momentum vector p1', which, divided by the mass m1 = 3.2, gives the magnitude of the velocity.
 
k that's what i meant the length of the last side, but when I use sine law to find out the 2 remaining angles, they all do not add up to 180
 
Fusilli_Jerry89 said:
k that's what i meant the length of the last side, but when I use sine law to find out the 2 remaining angles, they all do not add up to 180

Why are you trying to find the angle? Don't you have to find the speed only? If so, as said, you only have to divide that 'third' triangle side by the mass, since it represents momentum.
 
Yes, but I am curious as to why the angles to not make sense. I donno about u but just knowing that the triangle i drew duznt make any sense wuld make me wonder if i even did it right? Ne ways i got 1.7 m/s
 
Fusilli_Jerry89 said:
Yes, but I am curious as to why the angles to not make sense. I donno about u but just knowing that the triangle i drew duznt make any sense wuld make me wonder if i even did it right? Ne ways i got 1.7 m/s

Your answer is correct. I got the angles right, but I wouldn't worry about that if I were you.
 
k but if it asked for the angle at which it went, how wuld u do that?
 
nm i figured it out but instead using a dfferent method
 
Fusilli_Jerry89 said:
k but if it asked for the angle at which it went, how wuld u do that?

There is nothing wrong with graphical solutions, but they are not the most accurate way to solve such a problem. The most accurate approach is to resolve the known vectors into components using trigonometric ratios, and solve for the components of the unknown vectors.

Set up a coordinate system with x and y axes overlaying the compass directions, with +y going North and +x going East. Write your known vectors in terms of x and y components and use conservation of momentum to find the components of the third vector. Once you have the components, find the magnitude of the vector and its direction. I know you don't need the direction for this problem, but you said you wanted to get it right.
 
  • #10
yeah i just figured that out right after i posted this, i was just wonder why the triangle didnt make any sense it all. I see how it culdnt make sense, but I guess trig duznt always make sense?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K