There are several several instances when we can use the fact that \(e=1\). to simplify collision problems which saves us from having to apply conservation of energy.

The result \(e=1\). 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 \(e=1\). ??

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 \(u\). and \(f\). respectively ,

then ,

\(Tell\) \(me\) whether I use :

1) \(v-f=u\). ??

or

2) \(e=1\) ??

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

\(Be\) \(Careful\). :

e is the coefficient of restitution, not to be confused with \(2.7108\).

\(NOTE\). :

I know it is applicable for pure rotating and pure translating objects whether extended or not because i can prove it)

No vote yet

1 vote

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) 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

Sort by:

TopNewestMy 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 \(e=1 \Rightarrow\) Energy is conserved.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Yes you can in general use the result e=1 for any kind of collisions.

Log in to reply

Why do you put two commas

`,,`

where ever you have used them ?Log in to reply

I had edited Them For \(Saketh\).

Log in to reply