Pure maths, physics, logic (braingames.ru): non-trade-related brain games - page 17
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
No. The brick bounces back at, say, 99.5cm. That's "almost".
The size of the brick doesn't matter here. The important thing is to understand the physical processes that occur after a brick hits a ball, and then turn them into concrete numbers - say, centimetres.
Nothing complicated there really.
Why does a brick bounce as a physical process ??? (a perfectly elastic ball)
You can see from the task that the dimensions and weights of the brick and the ball and their ratios have no influence, only the distances ?!?
p.s. 1 ton brick falls on 1kg ball from 1 meter and will bounce ~1 meter ? Another option: from the bounce (~m) we have to determine the phys. charecteristics of the two bodies...
Something's not right....
Yes, that's right, they have no effect.
p.s. A 1 ton brick falls on a 1kg ball from 1 meter and will bounce ~1 meter ? Another option: from the bounce (~m) we have to determine the physical characteristics of the two bodies...
Take an ordinary brick weighing a couple of kilos and throw it on the ball. Think of it this way. But the answer doesn't really depend on the ratio of masses, the size of the bodies or the exact parameter 'almost', which can be 0.999999m or 0.99m. The most important thing is that the difference between a metre and 'almost a metre' is small compared to a metre.
The ball won't bounce at all.
That is, the answer is 0.
Knock a volleyball lying on the ground from above. It won't bounce at all?
It is possible, by the way, to check it experimentally. The problem is quite practical and the answer is something like this: "almost 72 cm" (the figure has been changed).
P.S. Hint: replace the ball with a spring, it will be easier.
Yes, that's right, they have no effect.
Take an ordinary brick weighing a couple of kilos and throw it on a ball. Think of it this way. But the answer doesn't really depend on the ratio of masses, nor on the exact parameter "almost", which could be 0.000001 cm, or it could be 1 cm.
Knock on a volleyball lying on the ground. It won't bounce at all?
If a will-o'-the-ballis" anabsolutely elastic ball" (as per the condition) - yes, it won't bounce at all. Neither will a brick.
The collision is simply a transfer of kinetic energy to the ball. It appeared with the fall of the brick, a potential->kinetic conversion.
But an elastic ball doesn't deform. It transfers the energy to the ground/base. If the ground is not elastic/springy ( my first choice ) , where will the bounce come from ?
Give me a solution, it got interesting... ;)
If a will-o'-the-ballis" aperfectly elastic ball" (as per the condition) - yes, it won't bounce at all. Neither will a brick.
The collision is simply a transfer of kinetic energy to the ball. It appeared with the fall of the brick, a potential->kinetic conversion.
But an elastic ball doesn't deform. It transfers the energy to the ground/base. If the ground is not elastic/springy ( my first choice ) , where will the bounce come from ?
Give me a solution, it got interesting... ;)
How is it that an elastic ball has no deformation? Have you never seen a tennis ball or a "bouncer"? Experiment, it's easy (say, throw a book on top of the ball).
The solution won't be immediate. Let someone at least try to see the real physics of all the processes.
P.S. This is not an aeroplane virus problem, it is simpler and quite defined.
I have a mistake. Sorry.
Unclear why reasoning for a "completely inelastic ball" :)))
An elastic ball will bounce, of course....
Probably share the energy, but the ball will share its energy with the ground....
answer : almost 50 cm ?
No need to guess :)
Give a figure - give a justification.
The answer is unexpected, no argument. And you have to look at the "spring" from a slightly unusual angle.
I'm just going to fluff it up, gentlemen...
I don't get it. I mean, I'm all brain in the trade. But I'm amazed...
Knock a volleyball lying on the ground from above. It won't bounce at all?
Of course it will bounce. And a tennis ball from a racket, if you hit it, it will bounce. But that's not an analogy.
A knock is a knock. Hand down, hand up.
And a brick comes back up only by squeezing the ball. How much energy it gave to the ball when squeezing it, roughly the same amount it received back, and the ball gave out.
If you hit the ball with your hand, it will make the difference. Roughly speaking, if you pull the top of the ball from the inside with a string and then cut it, it bounces.
The upper part of the ball, given its mass, will have inertia, which will pull it up.
In the case of a falling brick, all the energy will be given to the brick.
No need to guess :)
Give a figure - give a justification.
The answer is unexpected, no argument. And you have to look at the "spring" from a slightly unusual angle.
The justification is comparatively simple, but in Russian I will write - almost impossible....
If I mixed up the signs on exchange of energy and forces, the brick will bounce half a ball. i.e. the answer is "almost 2 metres". Impossible in my opinion....
Let's not guess ;)
How much?
Are you saying that the ball will bounce 1 metre minus almost 1 metre?
"almost one metre" is the height of the brick's return according to the problem