Using Special Case of Elastic Collisions in one dimension

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies that the equation for elastic collisions, which states that the relative velocity reverses, applies to bodies of different masses. While bodies of equal mass can exchange velocities, this is not the case for differing masses. An example illustrates how to calculate relative velocities before and after a collision, emphasizing that the reversal of relative velocity alone does not determine final speeds. To find the final velocities, conservation of momentum must also be applied. The insights gained are appreciated, even if not directly relevant to an upcoming test.
Seydlitz
Messages
262
Reaction score
4
Is it to possible to use the special case of elastic collisions in one dimension with bodies that posses different mass. Ordinarily I know that if the body has same mass the velocity of the bodies will simply be exchanged but is the fact also hold for body with different masses?

v_1 - v_2 = v_2' - v_1'
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Seydlitz said:
Is it to possible to use the special case of elastic collisions in one dimension with bodies that posses different mass. Ordinarily I know that if the body has same mass the velocity of the bodies will simply be exchanged but is the fact also hold for body with different masses?
The equation you posted--which states that the relative velocity reverses in an elastic collision--applies regardless of the masses. But it does not allow you to conclude that velocities are simply exchanged. (That's even more of a special case.)
 
Doc Al said:
The equation you posted--which states that the relative velocity reverses in an elastic collision--applies regardless of the masses. But it does not allow you to conclude that velocities are simply exchanged. (That's even more of a special case.)

Ah okay, so what the above equation actually state? I'm confused with the meaning that the relative velocity is simply reversed.
 
Seydlitz said:
Ah okay, so what the above equation actually state? I'm confused with the meaning that the relative velocity is simply reversed.
I'll give an example. Before they collide, say m1 is moving with speed 3 m/s to the east and m2 is moving with speed 4 m/s to the west. Taking east as positive, the relative velocity of m2 with respect to m1 before the collision is: V2 - V1 = -4 - 3 = -7 m/s.

So the relationship expressed in the equation above states that whatever happens during the elastic collision, they must end up such that the relative speed of m2 with respect to m1 after the collision is: V'2 - V'1 = +7 m/s. That's what reversed means. Of course this fact alone is not enough to determine those final speeds. You'll have to combine it with another relationship, such as conservation of momentum.
 
Ah now I get it, thank you for the help Doc. :D

This problem does not actually appear in my test today but it is really helpful to gain new insight from this.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Alternative elastic collision formula / physical interpretation
Replies
3
Views
1K
I Elastic collision between two spheres
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Work Done/Energy Transferred in One Dimensional Collision
Replies
5
Views
2K
B Confused about force body diagram for 2 body collision
Replies
6
Views
2K
Why Does Second Collision in Ballistic Pendulum Lead to Initial State?
Replies
5
Views
1K
One dimensional Elastic collision of two identical particle
Replies
8
Views
2K
B Why is KE not conserved when momentum is?
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
B The work done by two objects on each other
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
B Understanding Physics for Coding Collision of 2 Balls
Replies
14
Views
3K
I How do we analyze collisions involving accelerating objects?
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top