Timeline for A basic formula of 1D elastic collision derivation
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 24, 2019 at 5:36 | comment | added | d_g | @nluigi right, that works. I think this proof doesn't take care of vector directions, which is why I get that minus sign. | |
| S Apr 24, 2019 at 1:35 | history | suggested | os20 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
correction of presentation of eq.
|
| Apr 23, 2019 at 21:13 | comment | added | nluigi | @d_g, you are not dealing with 'absolute' kinetic energies but with changes in kinetic energies. In that case to have conservation of kinetic energy you need to have $\Delta {KE}_1 + \Delta {KE}_2 = 0$ which fixes your problem with the minus sign. | |
| Apr 23, 2019 at 21:10 | comment | added | Bill N | No, you don't need a modulus if you take care of vector directions. | |
| Apr 23, 2019 at 21:08 | vote | accept | os20 | ||
| Apr 23, 2019 at 22:41 | |||||
| Apr 23, 2019 at 21:07 | comment | added | os20 | Thanks! It's very clear. A bit different than the other answer but i ges you can prove a correct thing in many ways ... Now i need to understand the minus sign difference but what is a minus sign between physicists???;-) | |
| Apr 23, 2019 at 21:00 | vote | accept | os20 | ||
| Apr 23, 2019 at 21:08 | |||||
| Apr 23, 2019 at 20:55 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 24, 2019 at 1:35 | |||||
| Apr 23, 2019 at 20:50 | history | edited | d_g | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 63 characters in body
|
| Apr 23, 2019 at 20:43 | history | undeleted | d_g | ||
| Apr 23, 2019 at 20:41 | history | deleted | d_g | via Vote | |
| Apr 23, 2019 at 20:41 | history | answered | d_g | CC BY-SA 4.0 |