Velocity of ball after being hit by a racket

  • Thread starter Thread starter pvm
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ball Velocity
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the velocity and angle of a squash ball after being hit by a racket. In a simple scenario where the ball is stationary and the racket hits it flat, the ball's velocity aligns with that of the racket. However, when the racket face is angled, the angle at which the ball exits becomes more complex, especially if the ball has an inbound velocity. The conversation explores the impact of string tension and the need for a frame of reference to accurately calculate the ball's outbound velocity. The participants suggest using video analysis to observe real-world outcomes and verify theoretical assumptions.
pvm
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to figure the velocity (and specifically the angle) of a squash ball (for example) after being hit by a racket.

Simple case: say the ball is initially stationary (hanging in the air!) and the racket hits the ball "flat". That is the velocity of the racket it normal (perpendicular) to the face of the racket. Then it seems simple - the ball will move away with a velocity also normal to the face of the racket, in line with the velocity of the racket.

More complex case: say the ball is initially stationary again, but this time the face is "open" or at an angle to the velocity vector of the racket. E.g. you are hitting it along a horizontal trajectory, but the face of the racket is not vertical, but tilted back, say 45 degrees. What angle does the ball come off the racket now? I'm not sure how to figure this out. The racket has strings - its not a flat surface.

Most complex case: as above, but now say the ball has in inbound velocity. I need its outbound velocity in the ground frame of reference. I'm not sure its a simple case of doing vector addition of its inbound velocity to what would happen had it been stationary when hit.

I also need the magnitude of the velocity. Will it be that of the racket + ball inbound - losses for heat etc.?

Thanks for your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is this a homework assignment. If so you ou need to follow homework template and show some work. We are here to help but can't if you don't show what you've done so far.
 
No, not a homework assignment - I'm many years past that! :) Its a genuine problem I need to solve. I did A-level physics 30+ years ago... but I don't have enough knowledge to figure this out - unless its simpler than I am thinking - so I've nothing really to present in terms of work so far.

My thoughts are that if we look from the rackets frame of reference the ball is inbound with the racket velocity. Its also coming in at an angle if the face of the racket is open. I guess with simple "perfect" surfaces etc it would just bounce off with an equal and opposite angle. But with real strings and balls I think it will tend to come off much more towards the normal to the face. I was wondering if anyone could help me understand what this angle is likely to be...
 
I guess you will have to assume that the racket is perfectly flat, and that the angles towards the normal are equal. Use the addition of velocity (v racket + v ball), so you can treat all three cases equally.
Then more complex case would be the ball having spin.
 
Two great references (esp. the paper).
Thanks folks...
 

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

How to find velocity given force and time? (tennis)
Replies
1
Views
2K
Calculate the *Acceleration* after a (mostly) elastic collision?
Replies
3
Views
2K
B The physics of flywheel launchers (like tennis ball shooters)
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
Why Is the Coefficient of Restitution Less Than 1 in a Tennis Racket Collision?
Replies
3
Views
1K
What is the Velocity of the Ball Leaving a Racket Moving at 60 mph?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Ball hitting racket - Momentum Question (ENGAA 2017)
Replies
5
Views
2K
B Is velocity ever a scalar quantity?
Replies
48
Views
4K
B Impulse and distance from the axis of rotation
Replies
9
Views
2K
Why Does Second Collision in Ballistic Pendulum Lead to Initial State?
Replies
5
Views
1K
Pool Ball Physics: Questions on Impact Spins
Replies
5
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top