Carl John Hess cjhess at
Fri Aug 22 10:01:40 PDT 1997

> C. Scipio Cinncinatvs wrote:
> > A flat ball might actually provide more "oomph" because its energy
> > tend to transfer more easily to the target rather than being retained
> > the ball -- less bounce, more splat.
> Daniel de Lincoln responded:

> Um, you *want* bounce.

For co-lateral damage, yes.  But a flat or "dead" ball is going to transfer
more force to the object it is hitting.  Also, from a another post, I
learned that a tennis ball becomes non-deadly after the first hit.

 > Old ball comes from left: momentum mv.  Hits and sticks, so new v <- 0.
> Momentum transferred: mv.


> New ball comes from left: momentum mv.  Hits and bounces with perfect
> elasticity, so now it's going just as fast the other direction,
> so new v < -old v (negative because it's going in the other
> direction).
> Momentum transferred: 2mv.
> Physics types, did I get it right?

I sold my physics text back to the book man in 1992, but from what I
remember I see two flaws in your theory.  First, you won't achieve perfect
elasticity, unless you have found some material that can achieve it (a
super ball is close, but even its elasticity isn't perfect) and are in a
vacuum and you can prevent any energy from being lost in the bounce. 
Second, from your formula, you are assuming the object is going to gain
energy.  I don't think it will.  The momentum is always going to be
expressed as (mv).

C. Scipio Continue to Run His Mouth

To be removed from the Ansteorra mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe ansteorra".

More information about the Ansteorra mailing list