| | |||||||
| Register | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems. |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
| Is this an appropriate forum for basic physics questions? If so, I have a quick one: does a 50 pound object travelling at 100 mph have the same force as a 100 pound object traveling at 50 mph? If not, is there a formula to determine which has more force? Isn't it Force = Velocity x Mass ? |
|
#2
| |||
| |||
| Mass times velocity is *momentum*. Force is mass time *acceleration. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA |
|
#3
| |||
| |||
| Dear Pat: "Pat" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:1142038814.966521.218520@p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com... Yes. If you were to slam these two objects head on into each other, and they stuck together, they would come to a dead stop. As Tom pointed out, the momentum of each object is m * v, so their momenta (which are each a vector quantity... direction is really important) net to zero. Now for such slow speeds, the energy of each one... the amount of "force times time" it took to get them up to speed, is much greater for the lighter but faster one (in this case) Energy = 1/2 * mass * (velocity)^2 In your example, it took twice the force or twice the time to get the smaller mass to the higher speed. Now as to what *you* mean by "force"... ? David A. Smith |
|
#4
| |||
| |||
| Pat wrote: Unfortunately, this is where common language usage of terms like speed, impact, force, momentum, energy, inertia gets pretty muddy. In the newspapers, words like this describing a football player's motion are all used pretty much interchangably. When you start wanting to do things quantitatively, like you're doing, then the *precise* definitions used in physics become crucial. What's true in the statement above is that the *momentum* of both objects is the same, which means that in an impact with a stationary object, the result will be comparable in terms of the *momentum* of the struck object after the collision. However, the *force* applied depends on the interval of time of the contact. This is why, even though your change of momentum is the same in both cases, stopping your head with an airbag is preferred over stopping your head with the steering wheel in a collision. Moreover, the *energy* delivered depends on the details of the collision and whether some of that energy is devoted to breaking up the structure of the struck object. Consider the damage of bullet, which has less momentum than a swung 2x4. PD |
|
#5
| |||
| |||
| On 10 Mar 2006 17:00:15 -0800, "Pat" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote: Hi Pat, No, the correct formula is : Force = Acceleration x Mass (in a socalled inertial reference system) Acceleration is "change of velocity" In your examples the objects travel at a constant velocity (i.e accelaration = zero) and therefore the force is zero in both cases. Andre |
|
#6
| |||
| |||
| On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:00:15 -0800, "Pat" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in <1142038814.966521.218520@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups .com>: Absolutely. No, mass*velocity is actually momentum. Force is defined in physics as the rate of change of momentum. In classical physics this turns out to be mass*(change in velocity)=mass*acceleration. To approach the problem you posed, it's better to find the force from energy. The analysis would go as follows: Kinetic energy is 1/2*mass*velocity^2=1/2*mass*velocity*velocity. So the first object has 1/2*50*100*100 KE units of kinetic energy = 250'000 KE units The second object has 1/2*100*50*50 KE units = 125'000 KE units Now, in a collision, the kinetic energy will be converted to potential energy over equal distances. So the 50 lb object will have twice the force than the 100 lb object even though both have the same momentum. This is bourne out by observations that faster-moving smaller cars often inflict as much damage to an SUV as another SUV at a slower speed. Hope this helps. -- // The TimeLord says: // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us! |
| Tags |
| basic , physics , questions |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
| | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Moving Dimensions Theory Book Due Out in Fall 05--Very Rough Draft: 4th Dimensions Expanding Relative to 3 Spatial Dimensions | jollyrogership@yahoo.com | Physics Forum | 64 | 03-31-2012 10:24 AM |
| Simply put, MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY is THE NEW MODEL: http://physicsmathforums.com | drelliot@gmail.com | Physics Forum | 0 | 08-29-2006 06:32 AM |
| Moving Dimensions Theory!! Rock On!! | drelliot@gmail.com | Physics Forum | 1 | 07-06-2006 05:19 PM |
| Physics and Life - by Paul Davies | Laurent | Physics Forum | 6 | 01-15-2004 03:17 PM |