Impact of 2 rigid beam without energy loss has multiple slns

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the impact of two rigid beams assuming no energy loss during the collision. When one beam moves down with a uniform velocity and strikes another at rest, the resulting motion involves multiple variables, leading to infinite combinations of outcomes due to underconstrained equations. Unlike a single rigid ball impacting a beam, which yields a unique solution, the two-beam scenario complicates the dynamics due to the contact line rather than a point of contact. The assumption of no horizontal forces acting on the pivot does not effectively constrain the system further. Overall, the complexity arises from the nature of the interaction and the degrees of freedom involved.
trytodoit
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Today, I discussed my friend about two rigid beams impact and assuming no energy loss in the impaction.
2wmhq3l.png

As in the above figure, the upper beam move down with a uniform velocity ##v_c##, and hit a beam with ##0## velocity. After that the above beam will rotate and move away, which can be described by left end velocity ##v_l## and right hand velocity ##v_r##; the lower beam will rotate around the pined point at a angular velocity ##\omega##. Therefore, we have three free variables, but only to equations, one is conservation of angular moment, the other is conservation of energy. Consequently, there are infinite combination of these three variables, which is not intuitive.

For one rigid ball hit the beam, if there is no energy loss in the impaction, there will be only one solution. Why for two beams case, there are infinite number of combinations? If there are infinite combinations, what is the property that determine which combination of the three variable for the impaction?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is probably a reasonable assumption that no horizontal force acts on the pivot during the collision (there is no friction!). That gives a third constraint, but I guess that does not help as your degrees of freedom don't consider horizontal motion at all.

Hmm... in general it is not surprising that systems are underconstrained if you have a contact line instead of a single point. Your system will react completely different if the left side would be a tiny bit ahead compared to the right side a tiny bit ahead, for example.
 
mfb said:
It is probably a reasonable assumption that no horizontal force acts on the pivot during the collision (there is no friction!). That gives a third constraint, but I guess that does not help as your degrees of freedom don't consider horizontal motion at all.

Hmm... in general it is not surprising that systems are underconstrained if you have a contact line instead of a single point. Your system will react completely different if the left side would be a tiny bit ahead compared to the right side a tiny bit ahead, for example.
The no horizontal force seems auto satisfied, which cannot introduce a equation into the system.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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...
Back
Top