Analyzing Two-Dimensional Collisions

Alessandro Cittadini, Saira Rahim, Jean-Paul Saliba

SPH 4U1
Mr. Radica
7 May 2019
Introduction:
An elastic collision is a collision in which the total kinetic energy before the collision
equals the total kinetic energy after the collision.Through this investigation, a steel marble is
rolled down a ramp on an angle and collides with another steel marble and also a glass marble.
This creates an elastic, two-dimensional collision. This means that both the momentum and
conservation of kinetic energy have a net force of zero. The specific collision that occurs is
known as a glancing collision.

Purpose:
To prove the laws of momentum and conservation of energy in two dimensional elastic
collision experiments.

Hypothesis:
Based on the laws of momentum, when the the first steel marble is rolled down the ramp
and it collides with the second steel marble, this creates a two-dimensional elastic collision. This
would mean that since the collision is elastic, the kinetic energy and the momentum of the
collision is conserved. The total kinetic energy and the momentum at the start of the collision
should equal the total kinetic energy and momentum at the end of the collision.

Materials:
● C clamp
● Launching ramp apparatus
● Glass Marble
● Two Steel Marbles
● Meter Stick
● Carbon Paper
● Tape

Procedure:
1. Assembled the apparatus using a “C” clamp to tighten the launching ramp on the table top.

2. Positioned the ramp so that the marble ball that will be launched would project away from the
table and land on the floor.

3. The flat base of the launching ramp was extended over the edge of the table, so that the marble
can reach the paper on the floor.

4. Ensured that the photogate was set up correctly and positioned to measure the velocity of the
marbles.
5. Drop the steel marble to hit the second marble, do this repeatedly. After each trial record the
angle formed and the distance the marble travelled in the x and y component.

Table of Observations:
● Height of Table: 0.885 m
● Distance before collision: 0.48 m
● Angle from the normal of first target marble (steel marble):
○ Rolling Marble → 42.7°
○ Stationary Marble → 4.99°
● Angle from normal of the second target marble (glass marble):
○ Rolling Marble → 36.6°
○ Stationary Marble → 5.98°

Steel Ball:
Trial # Steel Target Steel Steel Target Target Vector Vector
Marble Marble Marble Marble Marble Marble Steel Target
Mass Mass Vi Vf [E Vi Vf [W (m) (m)
(Kg) (Kg) (m/s) 42.7 S] (m/s) 4.99 S]
(m/s) (m/s)

1 0.0083 0.0083 0.30 2.19 0 2.10 0.28 0.115

2 0.0083 0.0083 0.33 2.19 0 2.10 0.28 0.115

3 0.0083 0.0083 0.28 2.19 0 2.10 0.28 0.115

4 0.0083 0.0083 0.32 2.19 0 2.10 0.28 0.115

5 0.0083 0.0083 0.33 2.19 0 2.10 0.28 0.115

6 0.0083 0.0083 0.32 2.19 0 2.10 0.28 0.115

Average 0.0083 0.0083 0.31 2.19 0 2.10 0.28 0.115

Glass Ball:
Trial # Steel Glass Steel Steel Glass Glass Vector Vector
Marble Marble Marble Marble Marble Marble Steel Target
Mass Mass Vi Vf [E Vi Vf [W (m) (m)
(Kg) (Kg) (m/s) 36.6 S] (m/s) 5.98 S]
(m/s) (m/s)

1 0.0083 0.0054 0.28 2.158 0 2.163 0.235 0.24

2 0.0083 0.0054 0.33 2.158 0 2.163 0.235 0.24

3 0.0083 0.0054 0.29 2.158 0 2.163 0.235 0.24

4 0.0083 0.0054 0.34 2.158 0 2.163 0.235 0.24

5 0.0083 0.0054 0.31 2.158 0 2.163 0.235 0.24

6 0.0083 0.0054 0.26 2.158 0 2.163 0.235 0.24

Average 0.0083 0.0054 0.30 2.158 0 2.163 0.235 0.24

Analysis:
1. Calculate the initial and final momentum of the marbles and determine if the momentum
is conserved.
Conclusion:

In both scenarios, the momentum was conserved but does not equal zero in the calculations. This
is due to sources of error, such as air resistance, which ultimately caused the marble to slow
down, resulting in a skewed final velocity. Also energy could have been lost due to thermal
energy that was produced when the marble rolled down the ramp. This could explain why the
ratios calculated were not equivalent and off by a little bit due to energy being lost.
 2. Compare the calculated momentum velocities to the vectors determined from the
marble’s landing spot

In both scenarios, the ratios are not equal due to sources of error, as discussed below.
Discussion:
In the process of this lab, when the first rolling metal marble collided with the stationary
marble, it created a two dimensional elastic collision. It is considered an elastic collision because
as soon as the two marble collide, both marbles then continue to move in two different
directions. Due to the momentum before not equalling the momentum after, this means that
energy was lost during the collision. Energy could have been lost when the two marbles where
going through the air, creating air resistance. This means that energy was then lost due to thermal
energy. Energy loss could also be due to sound energy, where the gravitational or kinetic energy
is converted into sound to create the noise of the marbles hitting the ground.

A systematic error that could have occurred for this to happen was that the stationary
marble was not properly leveled with the rolling marble at impact. If the stationary ball is too
low, the ball will have a shorter time of fall. If the stationary marble is too high when it bounces
off with the rolling marble, then it will have a larger velocity causing it to have a greater time of
fall. A source of random error could be if the ramp may have not been clamped perpendicular to
the lab bench. These sources of error may be small, but they significantly affect the overall
experimental data.

Conclusion:
Overall, the law of conservation of momentum states that the total kinetic energy and
momentum at the start of the collision should equal the total kinetic energy and momentum at the
end of the collision. The laws of momentum were not broken, but certain sources of error
disrupted the lab results. In this experiment, the kinetic energy was mainly lost due to thermal
energy and sound energy. This means that even though the momentum before does not equal the
momentum after, the law is still correct.