Talk:Inelastic collision: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
True dat. -random person- <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.149.186.41|67.149.186.41]] ([[User talk:67.149.186.41|talk]]) 19:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
True dat. -random person- <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.149.186.41|67.149.186.41]] ([[User talk:67.149.186.41|talk]]) 19:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
"Inelastic collisions may not conserve kinetic energy, but they do obey conservation of momentum. Simple ballistic pendulum problems obey the conservation of kinetic energy only when the block swings to its largest angle." |
|||
This is plain wrong. In a completely inelastic collision, the receiving body absorbs all momentum of the striking body and therefore does not move. Therefore the resulting momentum is zero as the resultant velocity is zero. |
|||
Therefore I have clobbered this sentence. |
Revision as of 21:12, 18 September 2011
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Physics Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
|
"inelastic" redirect
searching for "inelastic" redirects to the disambiguation page for the word "elastic" either inelastic collisions should be added to the disambiguation page for "elastic" or a search for "inelastic" should redirect to this article. I do not know how to do the latter, and am not sure of which course of action should be taken. -aliencam (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Expound on formulas
I can't help but notice that several physics and chemistry articles present formulas as though these formulas are infallible and should just be swallowed as is without being understood. There should be an explanation on the principles behind the formula. Micasta (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
True dat. -random person- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.186.41 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)