B What will be the ball's velocity after a perfectly elastic collision?

AI Thread Summary
In a perfectly elastic collision involving a ball and a moving bus, the ball's initial velocity is affected by the bus's motion, resulting in a new velocity that is not simply the negative of the initial. The discussion highlights the importance of using conservation of momentum and energy to derive the new velocities, leading to the conclusion that the ball's final velocity is influenced by both its initial speed and the bus's speed. It is emphasized that choosing an appropriate frame of reference simplifies problem-solving. The analogy of a tennis ball thrown from a moving train illustrates how momentum transfer occurs during collisions. Understanding these principles is crucial for accurately determining the ball's velocity post-collision.
Lotto
Messages
251
Reaction score
16
TL;DR Summary
I throw a ball with a velocity ##v## against a bus moving towards me with a velocity ##-u##. What will be the ball's velocity after a perfectly elastic collision?
From the bus driver's point of view, who is at rest, the ball's initial velocity is ##u+v##. After the collision, its velocity has to have the same value, but an opposite direction, so ##-(u+v)##. So that means that relative to me standing on the ground at rest, the ball's new velocity is ##-(v+2u)##.

I understand this, but how to derive the new velocity from my point of view? I still can't explain why it is ##+2u## instead of ##+u##, I mean that the new velocity isn't##-(u+v)##. How to explain it? It is clear that it is because of the moving bus, but why in particular?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can just write down the conservation of momentum $$mv-Mu=mv_f-Mu_f$$ and the conservation of kinetic energy $$\frac{1}{2}mv^2+\frac{1}{2}Mu^2=\frac{1}{2}mv_f^2+\frac{1}{2}Mu_f^2$$ That is two equations in two unknowns, so you can solve it to get $$u_f=\frac{Mu-m(u+2v)}{m+M}$$$$v_f=\frac{mv-M(2u+v)}{m+M}$$ Then we simply take the limit as ##M\rightarrow \infty## to get $$u_f=u$$$$v_f=-2u-v$$
 
  • Like
Likes Lotto and Frabjous
You can do the first case in your head because you know the solution for an object hitting a stationary infinite mass. You do not know the solution for a moving object hitting a moving infinite mass, so you have to go back to first principles and use conservation of momentum and energy for the second case. This is an example of why choosing a “smart” frame of reference can make solving a problem easier.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Lotto and Dale
Lotto said:
I understand this, but how to derive the new velocity from my point of view? I still can't explain why it is ##+2u## instead of ##+u##, I mean that the new velocity isn't##-(u+v)##.
Can you explain why it should be ##-(u+v)##? It doesn't make any sense, because for ##v=0## the ball would just remain stuck to the bus, which isn't an elastic collision.

To check solutions it often helps to consider limiting / extreme cases.
 
  • Like
Likes phinds, jbriggs444 and Dale
Not very long ago there was a heated thread about gravity-assisted maneuvers where something very similar came up. This might help you.
1692570593745.png


From the article

Another analogy, illustrated by the cartoon above, involves a moving railroad train that represents Jupiter, moving along its track about the Sun. The kid in the propeller beanie throws a tennis ball that represents a spacecraft. It encounters the train, which transfers its momentum into the ball.

It's interesting to note the speeds in the cartoon. The propeller-beanie kid sees his tennis ball moving away from him at 30 miles per hour. So does the Sun, sitting on the stationary platform. The engineer driving the train sees the ball coming at about 80 MPH, since the train is moving 50 MPH with respect to the ground. The train and ball interact at 80 MPH. The ball rebounds from the front of the train at nearly the same 80 MPH, which can be added to the 50 MPH speed of the train, because it acquired it from the train. The result approaches a total of 130 MPH.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/basics/primer/
Credit to @A.T. who originally shared the source. Well, and credit to the NASA guys who wrote it of course.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top