How to calculate momentum at right angle

  • Thread starter Thread starter eulerddx4
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angle Momentum
AI Thread Summary
To calculate momentum at right angles, consider the conservation of momentum principle. In the described scenario, when a moving hockey puck collides with a stationary one, the momentum in the x-direction is initially present but becomes zero after the collision. The momentum is redistributed between the two pucks, with one moving up the y-axis and the other down. The calculation involves using vector components, where the momentum of the pucks can be expressed using trigonometric functions based on their angles. Understanding the conservation laws is crucial for accurately determining the resulting momenta after the collision.
eulerddx4
23
0
Hello,

I am trying to figure out how to calculate the momentum of something at a right angle.

basically a hockey puck is traveling on the x-axis and hits a stationary hockey puck. One of the hockey pucks goes up the y-axis (puck A) and one hockey puck goes down the y-axis (Puck B). Am I supposed to use m*v*sin90 ? and m*v*sin-90 ? or do I use cosine? I'm fine calculating with triangles but I don't know what to do when things (forces, momentums) are at right angles
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There has to be something else.

Before the collision you have momentum p in the x dir.
After collision you have no momentum in the x direction.
Therefore, momentum was not conserved in the collision.
Need more information.

Example - conservation of momentum:
If the incoming puck was A, and it finishes with momentum p (same as initial) in the +y dir, then puck B would head off with momentum about (1.4)p at 45 degrees... preserving the zero total momentum in the y dir and the p total momentum in the x dir.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term (1) one may derivate (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top