There are several several instances when we can use the fact that . to simplify collision problems which saves us from having to apply conservation of energy.
The result . is fairly obvious for head-on collisions, and for collisions of extended objects involving pure translation and for those involving pure rotation.
But my doubt is can I in general use the result for any collision among extended bodies too which might involve a combination of both rotation and translation ??
Can I say that if an object elastically collides with another,,, then the velocities of the points of contacts of both objects satisfy the relation . ??
example in the image,, if the collision between ball and rod is elastic,, can i say that the point of collision of the rod after collision necessarily moves at a speed v such that,, if the balls initial and final velocities are . and . respectively ,
then ,
whether I use :
1) . ??
or
2) ??
or
3) Do I have to use the usual way of energy conservation and momentum conservation and angular momentum conservation independently ??
Please any one who has the knowledge I seek help me ,, if possible also provide a qualitative or quantitative explanation
. :
e is the coefficient of restitution, not to be confused with .
. :
I know it is applicable for pure rotating and pure translating objects whether extended or not because i can prove it)
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
My question Challenges in mechanics by Ronak Agarwal (Part3) is based on this concept only.
Log in to reply
gotta try it then,, i saw it before but it seemed to lengthy,, either way can you prove that e=1 for all sorts of elastic collisions? or is it just a general result you know and apply ? :)
Log in to reply
Yes it is a general result that e=1⇒ Energy is conserved.
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Yes you can in general use the result e=1 for any kind of collisions.
Why do you put two commas
,,
where ever you have used them ?Log in to reply
I had edited Them For Saketh.