Length covered by block after collision

In summary, after the collision, board B and board C stick together and the board A slides on top of board C and stops its motion relative to board C in the position shown in the diagram.
  • #1
decentfellow
130
2

Homework Statement


Board ##A## is placed on board ##B## as shown. Both boards slide, without moving w.r.t each other, along a frictionless horizontal surface at a speed of ##6 \text{m/s}##. Board ##B## hits a resulting board ##C##, "head-on". After the collision, board ##B## and ##C## stick together and the board ##A## slides on top of board ##C## and stops its motion relative to board ##C## in the position shown in the diagram. What is the length (in m) of each board? All three boards have the same mass, size and shape. The coefficient of kinetic friction between boards ##A## & ##B## and b/w ##A## & ##B## is ##0.3##.

scan0001-jpg.105668.jpg


Homework Equations


Impulse-momentum theorem:- ##\displaystyle\int{F_{net}dt}=\int{dv}##
##\vec{F}=m\vec{a}##
##f_{max}=\mu N \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \text{where, $N$ is the normal reaction acting on the body}##

The Attempt at a Solution


geogebra-export.png

Applying the Impulse momentum theorem on all the blocks we get

$$-\int_{0}^{t}{\mu_km_Agdt}=m_A\int_{6}^{v}{dv}\implies \mu_km_Agt=m_A(6-v)\tag{1}$$
$$-\int_{0}^{t}{(N_3-\mu_km_Ag)dt}=m_A\int_{6}^{v}{dv}\implies (N_3-\mu_km_Ag)t=m_B(6-v)\tag{2}$$
$$\int_{0}^{t}{(N_3+\mu_km_Ag)dt}=m_A\int_{0}^{v}{dv}\implies (N_3+\mu_km_Ag)t=m_Cv\tag{3}$$

From ##(1), (2)## and ##(3)##, we get
$$\int_{0}^{t}{N_3dt}=2\int_{0}^{t}{\mu_km_Agdt}\implies N_3=2\mu_km_Ag$$
$$v=\dfrac{9}{2}\text{m/s}$$
$$t=\dfrac{1}{2}\text{sec}$$
$$a_{A/C}=4\mu_kg$$
$${v_{A/C}}_i=6\text{m/s} \qquad\&\qquad {v_{A/C}}_f=0$$
Now, as per the equation of motion for constant acceleration, we have
$$S_{A/C}=\dfrac{-u^2_{A/C}}{2a_{A/C}}=\dfrac{6^2}{8\mu_kg}=\dfrac{6^2}{4\times 3\times 2}=\dfrac{3}{2}\text{m}$$

But, the answer given in the book is ##10m##, where am I going wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What is the final velocity of the three boards?

AM
 
  • #3
Andrew Mason said:
What is the final velocity of the three boards?

AM
It is ##v=\dfrac{9}{2}\text{m/s}##
 
  • #4
decentfellow said:
It is ##v=\dfrac{9}{2}\text{m/s}##
I was not able to follow the reasoning by which you arrived at that. Try a simpler way:
- what is the initial total momentum?
- what is the final total momentum?
 
  • #5
haruspex said:
I was not able to follow the reasoning by which you arrived at that. Try a simpler way:
- what is the initial total momentum?
- what is the final total momentum?
Firstly, I had attempted the question the way you told to but at that time I had thought some really weird thing which led me to think that external force was acting on the system after thinking on it again there was no external force acting on it. So, we do get ##v=\dfrac{2mv_i}{3m}=\dfrac{2\times6}{3}=4\text{m/s}##, the time ##t=\dfrac{2}{3}\text{sec}##, the acceleration of the block C as ##a_c=\dfrac{4}{(2/3)}=6\text{m/s}^2##. So, we get ##a_{A/C}=-9\text{m/s}^2##, therefore, ##S_{A/C}=\dfrac{-u^2_{A/C}}{2a_{A/C}}=\dfrac{6^2}{2\times9}=2\text{m}##

Still, the answer that I get is not the same as the book's.
 
  • #6
You make it look as if block A moves with the same speed as block B and C right after the collision of B and C ?
 
  • #7
decentfellow said:
stops its motion relative to board C in the position shown in the diagram
I don't see a diagram showing this. Is A half way C when no longer sliding ?
 
  • #8
BvU said:
I don't see a diagram showing this. Is A half way C when no longer sliding ?
Oh no! I am very sorry I will be uploading the diagram in a moment.
 
  • #9
BvU said:
I don't see a diagram showing this. Is A half way C when no longer sliding ?
Here is the diagram accompanying the question
scan0001.jpg
 
  • #10
OK, so it slides the full length of C. I agree with the 4 m/s for the 'after' case. Check out the situation right after B collides with C.
 
  • #11
BvU said:
OK, so it slides the full length of C. I agree with the 4 m/s for the 'after' case. Check out the situation right after B collides with C.
what I think is that an impulsive normal reaction force acts on both the blocks ##B \& C## and block ##A## due to inertia continues to move with the same speed it was moving before just that due to relative motion b/w the contact surface a retarding force starts to act on it. I thought that to remain on the safe side I should use the impulse momentum theorem to analyse the situation, but I don't know why but it gives all the wrong values of the variables.
 
  • #12
decentfellow said:
what I think is that an impulsive normal reaction force acts on both the blocks ##B \& C## and block ##A## due to inertia continues to move with the same speed it was moving before just that due to relative motion b/w the contact surface a retarding force starts to act on it. I thought that to remain on the safe side I should use the impulse momentum theorem to analyse the situation, but I don't know why but it gives all the wrong values of the variables.
That all seems right. I didn't understand how you got the time 2/3s in post #5.
What are the speeds of A, B and C just after collision? What is the speed of A relative to B&C then? What is the relative acceleration?
 
  • #13
From the
haruspex said:
That all seems right. I didn't understand how you got the time 2/3s in post #5.
From the fact that a constant force ##\mu_km_Ag## on the block ##A## to finally stop its relative motion with block ##C##. So, we get
$$\mu_km_Agt=m_A(6-v)\implies t=\dfrac{6-4}{\mu_kg}=\dfrac{2}{3}$$. Am, I right ?o_O

haruspex said:
What are the speeds of A, B and C just after collision? What is the speed of A relative to B&C then? What is the relative acceleration?

Just after the collision the speed of the block ##A## should be ##6\text{m/s}## because there is no impulsive normal reaction acting on its surface but there is force of friction acting on it to stop its relative motion but just after the collision, i.e. in a time ##dt##, it does not deaccelerate to any significant time.

And for the blocks ##B## & ##C## as there is an external force, i.e. the force of friction, so the momentum of the system is not conserved exactly but due to the same reasoning as that in block ##A##, the deaccelration produced due to the friction force is not significant, so we assume the momentum of the system can be assumed to be approximately conserved. So, we get
$$mv=2mv'\implies v'=\dfrac{v}{2}=3\text{m/s}$$

For the relative acceleration what I did was as the block ##A## has a deacceleration of magnitude ##\mu_kg## and from the equation of motion we get $$v_f-v_i=a_Ct\implies 4-3=a_C(2/3)\implies a_C=\dfrac{3}{2}\text{m/s}^2$$ ,so we get ##a_{A/C}=4.5\text{m/s}^2##.

So we get $$S_{A/C}=\dfrac{-u^2_{A/C}}{2a_{A/C}}=\dfrac{(6-3)^2}{2\times 4.5}=\dfrac{9}{9}=1m$$

This again brought a new answer, where did I go wrong in this.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
decentfellow said:
Am, I right ?
If this is after the connection of B to C, then what are the 6 and the ##v## ?
Is considering things in the reference frame of C equivalent to working in an inertial frame of reference ?
 
  • #15
BvU said:
If this is after the connection of B to C, then what are the 6 and the ##v## ?
Is considering things in the reference frame of C equivalent to working in an inertial frame of reference ?
##6\text{m/s}## is the velocity of the blocks ##A## & ##B## before collision and the velocity of the block ##A## just after the collison, and ##v## is the velocity of the system comnprising of ##A,B## and ##C## after the block ##A## has stopped in the position shown in the figure accompanying the question. Also, working in the reference frame of C is not inertial as its an accelerated system so, if analysing the motion of block ##A## we would have to include a pseudo force but I did not do that because I solved everything in the ground's frame of reference and when I had to find the relative displacement I just found out the relative velocity and acceleration.
 
  • #16
Why isn't the change in kinetic energy of block A just equal to the work done by friction when A slides a distance L?
 
  • #17
J Hann said:
Why isn't the change in kinetic energy of block A just equal to the work done by friction when A slides a distance L?
Good question. Let's see where that takes us:
Loss of KE of A is m(62-42)/2=10m. Force=3m. L=10/3.
We can do the same for B&C: 2m(42-32)/2=7m. L=7/3.
Interestingly, the difference is 1m, as correctly found to be the answer in post #13.
 
  • #18
decentfellow said:
Firstly, I had attempted the question the way you told to but at that time I had thought some really weird thing which led me to think that external force was acting on the system after thinking on it again there was no external force acting on it. So, we do get ##v=\dfrac{2mv_i}{3m}=\dfrac{2\times6}{3}=4\text{m/s}##, the time ##t=\dfrac{2}{3}\text{sec}##, the acceleration of the block C as ##a_c=\dfrac{4}{(2/3)}=6\text{m/s}^2##. So, we get ##a_{A/C}=-9\text{m/s}^2##, therefore, ##S_{A/C}=\dfrac{-u^2_{A/C}}{2a_{A/C}}=\dfrac{6^2}{2\times9}=2\text{m}##

Still, the answer that I get is not the same as the book's.
Total momentum is conserved at ALL times. So immediately after the collision, between B and C, A is still moving at 6 m/sec. B and C travel at 3 m/sec.

We know that the kinetic energy lost to friction is lost as heat. So try working out how much energy is lost between the moment of impact between B and C and the moment that A stops moving relative to B and C. You have to take into account the loss of kinetic energy of A and the gain in kinetic energy of B + C. The difference is the energy lost as friction. Divide that by the force of friction to get the sliding distance (L). Don't assume the book is correct.

AM
 
  • #19
Andrew Mason said:
Total momentum is conserved at ALL times. So immediately after the collision, between B and C, A is still moving at 6 m/sec. B and C travel at 3 m/sec.

We know that the kinetic energy lost to friction is lost as heat. So try working out how much energy is lost between the moment of impact between B and C and the moment that A stops moving relative to B and C. You have to take into account the loss of kinetic energy of A and the gain in kinetic energy of B + C. The difference is the energy lost as friction. Divide that by the force of friction to get the sliding distance (L). Don't assume the book is correct.

AM
Yes, that method is also valid, and produces the same answer decentfellow got in post #13.
 
  • #20
haruspex said:
Yes, that method is also valid, and produces the same answer decentfellow got in post #13.
I think its safe to conclude that the answer the book has written is wrong and the answer should be ##1\text{m}## as the work energy theorem also gives the same answer.
 
  • #21
haruspex said:
Good question. Let's see where that takes us:
Loss of KE of A is m(62-42)/2=10m. Force=3m. L=10/3.
We can do the same for B&C: 2m(42-32)/2=7m. L=7/3.
Interestingly, the difference is 1m, as correctly found to be the answer in post #13.

Apparently, I can't use the loss of KE by A in say the BC frame because it's not an inertial frame.
However, I still have problems with the statement :
mv=2mv′⟹v′=v2=3m/smv=2mv′⟹v′=v2=3m/s
because it seems that the frictional force between A and B at the moment of collision would
increase the effective mass of B and that equation for conservation of momentum
would not be valid.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/length-covered-by-block-after-collision.884697/
 
  • #22
J Hann said:
Apparently, I can't use the loss of KE by A in say the BC frame because it's not an inertial frame.
However, I still have problems with the statement :
mv=2mv′⟹v′=v2=3m/smv=2mv′⟹v′=v2=3m/s
because it seems that the frictional force between A and B at the moment of collision would
increase the effective mass of B and that equation for conservation of momentum
would not be valid.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/length-covered-by-block-after-collision.884697/
You are confusing the physics by terms like "effective mass". There is no such thing. There are just forces, (real) masses and accelerations. If it helps, assume there is no friction at all between A and B for the first microsecond and just assume that B and C stick together immediately and the force between them is very large so C's acceleration and B's deceleration occur in that first microsecond.

Measure all kinetic energies in the lab/table frame of reference.

AM
 
  • #23
Andrew Mason said:
You are confusing the physics by terms like "effective mass". There is no such thing. There are just forces, (real) masses and accelerations. If it helps, assume there is no friction at all between A and B for the first microsecond and just assume that B and C stick together immediately and the force between them is very large so C's acceleration and B's deceleration occur in that first microsecond.

Measure all kinetic energies in the lab/table frame of reference.

AM
There may be no such thing as an "effective mass" , however it is commonly used in experiments using
a mass suspended from a spring of mass M where the "effective mass" of M/3 is used in computing
the total mass of the oscillation.
 
  • #24
J Hann said:
Apparently, I can't use the loss of KE by A in say the BC frame because it's not an inertial frame.
Energy can look different across different inertial frames. Consider a simpler set-up. A platform moves horizontally at constant speed u. A block lying on it starts moving at speed v relative to it but is slowed by friction F to match speed u. In the platform's frame, the work done is mv2/2. In the ground frame it is m(v2/2+uv). The ratio is the same as the ratio of perceived distances moved: mv2/(2F) in the platform's frame and m(v2/2+uv)/F in the ground frame.
 
  • #25
haruspex said:
Energy can look different across different inertial frames. Consider a simpler set-up. A platform moves horizontally at constant speed u. A block lying on it starts moving at speed v relative to it but is slowed by friction F to match speed u. In the platform's frame, the work done is mv2/2. In the ground frame it is m(v2/2+uv). The ratio is the same as the ratio of perceived distances moved: mv2/(2F) in the platform's frame and m(v2/2+uv)/F in the ground frame.

Thanks for clarifying that. My comment on "effective mass" does not appear relevant because the maximum
force that block A can exert on block B (at impact) is the frictional force and this would occur in such a short
time that the impulse would be negligible as compared to the impulse when B collides with C so that the
conservation of momentum equation used would be very nearly strictly valid.
 

FAQ: Length covered by block after collision

1. What is the meaning of "length covered by block after collision"?

The "length covered by block after collision" refers to the distance traveled by a block after it has collided with another object or surface. It is often used to measure the displacement or movement of an object during a collision.

2. How is the length covered by a block after collision calculated?

The length covered by a block after collision is calculated by subtracting the initial position of the block from its final position. This gives the displacement or distance traveled by the block during the collision.

3. Does the mass of the block affect the length covered after collision?

Yes, the mass of the block can affect the length covered after collision. Objects with larger mass have more inertia, which means they are more resistant to changes in motion. This can result in a shorter length covered after collision compared to a lighter block with less inertia.

4. Are there any other factors that can affect the length covered by a block after collision?

Yes, there are other factors that can affect the length covered by a block after collision. These include the speed, angle, and shape of the block, as well as the surface it is colliding with. Friction and other external forces can also impact the length covered after collision.

5. How is the concept of "length covered by block after collision" useful in science?

The concept of "length covered by block after collision" is useful in understanding the principles of motion and energy conservation. It is often used in physics experiments and calculations to analyze the effects of collisions and predict the movement of objects. It is also important in fields such as engineering and mechanics where understanding the dynamics of collisions is crucial.

Back
Top