PhmEduc 28(1%3).

PtintedintheUK

Computermntrolled collision and the

force versus time curve

A V Krupitsch, F J Wunderlich and

A J Phares

Computercontrolled collisions between two lums are suspended. The hammer is a pendulum of
pendulums are described for use a5 a laboratory m a s m,comprising a steel ball and a thin brass
experiment. Aforcetransducer pmvldesadetailed rod, suspended from a nearly frictionless ball-
description of the mlllslon In time. bearing pivot. The anvil, of mass M, is a piece of
I-beam steel cut in half and suspended by nylon
Collision experiments have long been an inte strings. At equilibrium, the steel ball of the
gral component of physics teaching laboratories hammer is barely in contact with the anvil.
(Sutton 1938, White and Manning 1954, Bernard The interfacing of the Commodore64C to con-
1972, McAlexander 1979). In most experiments, trol, monitor and collect data is described in the
knowledge of the force as a function of time article by Wunderlich and Shaw (1983). The neces-
during the collision is lacking. We study the sary machine language code is available upon
collision between two pendulums referred to as request. A Philips PM 6612/02 pulse generator,
hammer and anvil. A Commodore64C computer
is used to control the experiment and to collect the
data. A piezoelectric transducer attached to the Figure 1. Diagram ofthe apparatus.
anvil at the point of impact allows one to obtain
the time evolution of the force of contact during
collision. Such an experiment is suitable for uni-
versity use, but the gifted school experimenter
might benefit from it too. One may use this article
to Form the basis of a project experiment. It
incorporates many applications of fundamental
physical concepts, and includes modelling and
curve fitting.

Apparatus, Instrumentationand results

Figure I shows a diagram of the apparatus with-
out the fixed steel structure from which two pendu-

Alexey Krupltsch is a Physics graduate of Villanova

University and is currently at Drexei University. both in
Pennsylvania, USA. Frands Wunderllch is Associate
Professor of Physics at Villanova University (after 20
years there as Assistant Professor);he is interested in
statistical thermodynamics and new undergraduate
experiments. Alaln Phares is Professor of Physics and
DjreMor of the Secondary Smool ScienceProgram at
Villanova University. He studied in Lebanon, France
and the USA, and is also interested in lhermodynamics
and undergraduate teaching, having published over 30
papers in various journals.

m J l - S l M R 3 m l ~ + Wm7,SOQ1593 lOPPubl8shing Ltd

 two standard helium-neon lasers and two ECG Table 1. Characteristicsof the hammer and the anvil.
3034/P312 phototransistors are used for time
measurements. A Kynar piezoelectric film force Mass of hammer m 298.2+0.1g
transducer (Pennwalt Corp.) and a National Semi- Mass of anvil M 1638.8+0.1 g
conductor ADC0820 analogue to digital converter Mass ratio p=m/M 0.1820
(ADC) are used to measure the force curve. The
Distance from pivot to
hammer's centre of
computer is used as a pulse counter, storing the mass L 58.15f0.05cm
number of pulses counted between events. A fre- Period of hammer's
quency of typically 100 kHz, produced by the small oscillations 7H 1.653t 0.002 s
pulse generator, serves as a time base, accurate Period of anvil's small
to I 1 pulse or I10 ps. The two laser-photo- oscillations TA 1.007 10.002 s
transistors constitute two independent photogates Distance of the anvil's
indicated as beams B, and B2 in figure 1. Laser centreofmassfromits
beam B, is interrupted by the passage of the point of suspension LA 23.310.1 cm
hammer's rod before and again after collision.
Laser beam B2 is interrupted by the anvil's rod
after collision.
The hammer is pulled aside and held in place by
an electromagnet controlled by the computer. The
release height H of the hammer's centre of mass is has speed vi and its angular speed wi is given by
measured with a cathetometer. 1 4x2
-(CO?-&=- (1 -cos &). (4)
2 TZ1
The hammer. Its centre of mass, G H , is at a
Conservation of energy between the instant of
distance L from the pivot and its moment of
inertia is I. Its period of very small oscillations release and the instant just before collision requires
!hI~:=mgH and, consequently,

T"= 2%- mgL (1)

is measured by timing IO00 oscillations with a
digital watch accurate to k IO ms. We report the
value of T~ in table 1, accounting for the error due
to human reaction. The diameter of the hammer's
rod, d,, is measured with a micrometer, and also
measured photometrically by slowly advancing the
hammer through laser beam Bi shown in figure 1.
The photometric measurement depends on the
angular speed of the hammer (Mom and Ertel
1988), and the micrometer reading is an upper
limit.
The hammer is released at angular displacement
8 , from its equilibrium position. Before collision,
and at angle 8, its angular speed w is given by
and its centre of mass has a speed v = wL. At angle
OB, the hammer's rod crosses laser beam B, with
angular speed mB, and B1is a distance LEfrom the
pivot. The time T12is the time that elapses between
,
the hammer's rod 'entering' and 'leaving' beam B ,
OBLB=dl/Ti2 *oB=dl/Tl2LB. (3)
As the hammer reaches its equilibrium position
@=O) and just before collision, its centre of mass
x (I -coseB) .
1
The relationships between Hand (1/T12)2is written
in the form
H= S(l/Ti2)'+ b => 2
. .
=-
8dL
[ S ( V T I ~ )61.
~+ (6)
&
This decreases the error in measuring L B and OB
and the effective diameter of the hammer's rod.
A least-squares fit of Hversus (1/T,2)2providesthe
slope Sand intercept b. Then vi is computed using
these values and equation (6).
Hammer and anvil are in electrical contact for a
time interval T34.ARer collision, the hammer
leaves the anvil with a speed v?, and crosses beam
B, in the opposite direction. The time required for
the hammer's rod to cross B, this second time is
T78.The quantity v: is calculated in terms of S, b
and T78 by computing the right-hand side of
equation (6) with T7, replacing TI2.

27
The anvil. The period, rA, of very small oscil-
lations of the anvil is measured in the way that we
measured ‘ T ~ Beam
. B2 is at a horizontal distance
of about 0.6 cm from the anvil’s rod at equilibrium,
corresponding to an angular displacement of less
than 1.5”. After collision, the time between losing
electrical contact and the initial breaking of beam
B2 by the anvil is T4s. The time required for the
anvil’s rod to cross beam B, is TS6,
Figure 2 represents the various positions of the
anvil’s centre of mass, G , , whose motion is justifi-
ably treated as rectilinear and harmonic:
x(?)=x, sin(Q,r+cp) QA=2n/rA. (7)
Choose the time origin as the start of the collision,
then T,, is the duration of the collision. The
instant the anvil’s rod enters k m B2 is T34+ T4,,at
which time the ‘‘Ordinate Of GA is x I . At the
instant the anvil’s rod leaves beam B, the time is
T34+ r 4 5 + T56 and the coordinate of GAis x 2 . The
time T34 is ahout 100 times smaller than T4, and
T 5 6 , which indicates that X I is smaller than x2 by
about the Same factor. This was verified experi-
Flgurs 2, Enlargementof a pOfiion Off!gUre 1 showing
on the fixed laser beam B2.the centre of mass GI Of the
anvil, and a section of ik brass rod (shaded area).
Three positions of the anvil are represented in this
diagram, those atthe instants Ts. TM+ T ~andS
T=+ T,,+ Ts.
28
mentally. The quantity QAT3,+cp is three orders of
magnitude smaller than Q,(T,,+ TS6).Thus, the
speed V , of GA just after collision is calculated
using the approximation
QAX2
VI= . (8)
sin QA(T~s+
Ts6)
The collision. The duration of the collision,
[O, T d is about 0.4 ms. The Kynar piezoelectric
film force transducer is attached to the strike face
of the anvil by a thin (1.5 mm) aluminium plate,
which affords the necessary protection, as shown
in figure I . The voltage produced during the
collisionwas recorded every 25 shy the computer
using the *DC, This time base was dictated by the
conversion time of the ADC under load conditions
and by the characteristics of the transducer. The
transducer is an electret which produces a charge
separation upon deformation. The device then actS
as a capacitor with the voltage between layers
being proportional to the charge produced, In
turn, the charge produced is proportional to the
force causing the displacement. The analogue volt-
ages produced by the transducer are converted to
their digital representation by the ADC. The com-
puter stores the digitized force versus time curve in
its memory. For a given^ release height, the time
measurements were taken first, followed by the
force measurements. The computer obtained 255
data points, of which about 12 points were in the
region of interest, since the collision is over by
400 ps. A typical curve is illustrated in figure 3.
Conversion of digitized voltage readings to
newtons will be discussed later.
Linear momentum is conserved if contact force
at the suspension points of the pendulums are
assumed to remain vertical, while all linear
momenta remain horizontal. Initially, the anvil is
at rest and the hammer’s linear momentum is
pi=mvj. At the end of the collision, the hammer’s
centre of mass has a velocity vf and its linear
momentum is pr= mif, while the anvil’s centre of
mass has a velocity VI and its momentum PI=
M Y , . Assuming conservation of linear momentum
r e q u i r e p ; = p r + P I , and the magnitudes of these
vectors are related according to
Pi+Pr=Pi. (9)
The data show that this is the case to within a few
per cent.
Let v ( r ) and p(r) be the horizontal components
of the velocity and linear momentum of the
hammer’s centre of mass: v( r ) vanes from + Y; to
-vr, andp(r) from +pi to -pi. Similarly, let V ( t )
and p ( t ) be the horizontal components of the

Figure 3. Force versus time curve for experimental run
#8.
velocity and linear momentum of the anvil‘s centre
of mass: V ( t )vanes from 0 to VI, and P(r) from 0
to P I . Conservation of linear momentum a t any
instant t requires that
Pi=P(o+P(f). (103
We introduce the dimensionless parameter R ( f )
defined as
R ( t ) = - v ( t ) / v i = -p(t)/pi. (11)
Its initial and final values are R i = - 1 and R r =
vf/vj=pr/pi.In terms of R( f ) we have
p ( f ) = ( l +R(tNpi (12)
and the force, F(t), that the hammer exerts on the
anvil is
dP dR
F ( t ) = - dt
= p-. (13)
‘ dt
Consider the total incident kinetic energy, E, of the
hammer:
During the collision, a fraction A of this energy
remains kinetic, part of which, B, is possessed by
the anvil, and the rest, C, by the hammer. The
remaining fraction, Q, is dissipated in surface
deformation, heat and sound, and stored as stresses
and strains in both the hammer and the anvil.
Upon intruducing the parameters
it is straightforward to show that
B=pf(I+R)’ C=R2
(16)
A=B+C Q=l-A.
The knowledge of R ( t ) is all that is necessary to
obtain the explicit time evolution of p ( t ) , P(t),
‘&O, W ) , and Q M .
Data analysis, dlscusslon and conclusion
The characteristics of the various elements used in
this experiment are listed in table I . Table 2
provides all time measurements made by the
computer.
Eleven different release heights, H , were studied
with ten independent sets of measurements at each
height, totalling 110. Measurements at certain
heights were m c u l t to obtain because the
hammer’s rod was subject to resonance vibrations.
These vibrations prematurely trigger photogate B,
on recoil, causing serious timing errors. For each
of four release heights, one set of time measure
ments did not meet Chavenet’s criterion @ugh
and Winslow 1966, Barford 1969) and these were
rejected. Inclusion of these four sets of measure
ments does not substantially change our results.
Students should be made aware that criteria exist
by which to judge experimental data. For their
benefit, we explain Chavenet’s criterion. Let N be
the total number of measurements of the same
quantity, (x) the average of these measurements
and (J their standard deviation. Chavenet’s cri-
terion rejects a measurement if the probability of
obtaining it is less than I/ZN. Based on a Gaussian
probability distribution, and for a series of ten
measurements, this criterion rejects measurements
outside the range ( ( x ) - 1.960, ( x ) + 1.96~)).
Beam B, had to be repositioned in order to
maintain the proper chronological sequence of
time measurements. Runs #I-3, set (11, and
runs #4-11, set (21, correspond to the two
positions of B,. A typical force versus time curve
is that for run #8, shown in figure 3.
Test of conservation of linear momentum. The
values of the initial and h a 1 speeds of the
hammer’s centre of mass, computed using the
least-squares fit of the data, H versus l/Tf2, are
given in table 3 and plotted in figure 4. The curves
correspond to the sets of data 11) and {Z)
a
 Table 2. Time measurements

Run 7'12 Ts4 T4, T56

# (m) (& (ms) (ms)
I 7.89610.bo7 0.3726*0.0033 38.6710.32 56.6310.01 21.85 10.27
2 620010.006 0.364010.0044 41.90f0.83 41.6110.55 17.57*0.12
3 5.45610.007 0.356630.0077 35.86*0.89 32.7110.32 16,3810.44
4 5.74710.006 0.362410.0053 25.4710.42 31.2810.20 15.48*0.42
5 5.61710.003 0.380810.0189 24.5410.47 30.6710.47 *
14.65 0.19
6 5.431 30.009 0.357010.0044 23.7610.31 29.38*0.13 14.1110.09
7 5.18410.CQ4 0.349310.0039 22.2710.26 27.5210.13 13.3510.05
8 4.70230.005 0.345910.0035 21.16f0.31 24.21~t0.04 13.6030.06
9 4.52210.008 0.358210.0030 19.9310.28 23.2110.13 I3.M* 0.05
IO 4.25910.005 0.350910.0048 19.1210.06 21.5210.14 12.8630.04
I1 4.11910.005 0.342710.0037 18,2810.29 20.6310.10 12.5410.07

respectively. The results are where the subscripts {I} and {Z} differentiate
S,,,=2.836 x IO-'& s' the two sets. Table 3 also lists R at the end of the
collision, Rr= v f / q .
b,,,= 9.292 x lO-'cm Using equation (8) and table I, we have com-
S,,,=3.944 x io-* cm s2 puted P i , the linear momentum of the anvil's
centre of mass. From the masses in table 1 and the
b,2b=1.201 x IOK'cm speeds in table 3, we calculated pi +pr and com-
pared it with PI (table 4). The deviation from
conservation of linear momentum vanes between
Flgure 4. Release height (H)of the centre of mass of -5.0% and +5.8%.
the hammer versus the reciprocal squared of Tq2,the
time measured by laser beam 5,.Set {I} and set Analytid fit of the force curve (m#8). The time of
{2} are experimental runs with different positions of electrical contact between hammer and anvil is
the laser beams, with set {l) corresponding to the
I , = Tw, Extrapolating the CRC sparkgap data
first three runs.
(Chemical Rubber Co. 1966), one speculates that
I
- the time of electrical contact, as established by a
5 V arc (Wunderlich and Shaw 1983), is about
I Y
E
70 ps too long. Also, the relative humidity would
I
randomize the electrical contact time. Thus, the
2 51
Table 3. Speed of t h e centre oi mass of t h e hammer
immediately before and Immediately after collision.
and the R-parameter.
2 01

1.51 - ___- .. .
I 0.555 30.34 16.00 0.527 -0.323
2 0.814 37.36 17.62 0.472 -0.402
3 1.055 41.91 18.27 0.436 -0.457
4 1.310 46.99 21.87 0.465 -0.413
5 1.356 47.99 22.60 0.471 - 0.404
6 1.460 49.48 23.12 0.467 -0.410
7 1.602 51.65 23.95 0.464 -0.414
8 1.915 56.56 23.67 0.418 -0,486
9 2.048 58.67 23.89 0.407 -0.504
IO 2,290 62.09 24.55 0.395 - 0.524
II 2.440 64.09 24.97 0.390 -0.533
Table 4. Conservation of linear momentum. Consistent with the extrapolation made on the
CRC sparkgap data, T, is longer than f f by 83 ps.
Run ~ i + ~ r PI % We use equations (18)-(22), Rr=0.418 and p i =
# (I04gcms") (IO'gcms-') deviation mi=1.687 x 104 g cm s-', to compute, in this
order, o,6, hand Fa.The results are
1 1.382 1.391 +0.7
2 1.640 1.564 -4.6 0=1.195s-' <=0.947
3 1.795 1.878 f4.6 (23)
h=1.349 Fo= 5159 N.
4 2.053 1.951 - 5.0
5 2.105 1.999 - 5.0 The newton scale reported in figure 3 is set by
6 2.165 2.075 -4.2 the numerical value of Fo. Finally, according to
7 2.254 2.210 - 2.0 equations (ll), (12) and (17), the analytic expres-
8 2.392 2.422 C 1.3 sion of R(t) provides an explicit model for the time
9 2.462 2.544 +3.3 evolution of the quantities p ( t ) , P(r), A(r), B(t),
IO 2.584 2.691 +4.1 C(r)and Q(f).
11 2.656 2.810 f5.8

Inelasticity of the collision. A fraction A ( I ) of the

duration, tr, of the collision is expected to be
smaller than T34.
The ADC readings in volts are converted to
newtons by requiring that the area beneath the
force curve be equal to the impulse acquired by the
anvil,pi(l+ R ~ ) = P=2.422
, x 104gcm s-'. An ana-
lytical fit of the force curve is provided by the
function
F,(t)=F,e-(Usinot O<t<ff. (17)
At time If, hammer and anvil lose contact and
F.(tf)=O, thus
otr=x.
The maximum of Fa([)occurs at a time ,f such
that
total incident kinetic energy E remains kinetic. In
the elastic limit, the value of A a t the end of the
collision, A(tr), is equal to unity. Consequently,
equation (16) provides the value that Rr should
have in the elastic limit,
Rei=
1-Pf
-
l+Pf'
For our system,Rd=0.712, and, as expected, the
values of Rr in table 3 are less than this elastic
value and decrease with increasing values of vi, the
incident speed of the hammer's centre of mass. In
the limit where both parts stick together at the end
(18) of the collision, the collision becomes totally inela-
stic and A reaches its minimum (dA/dR = 0), thus

For oursystem, theinelasticlimitisRi.,= -0.144.

It has been widely reported that collisions
become elastic as the initial momentum approaches
zero, and inelastic as the initial momentum
The analytic form of R(r) is obtained by inte- becomes very large. A model for Rf as a function of
grating equation (13), vi, satisfying the conditions
R(r)= - 1 +h[l -e-m5t(cosot+<sin cot)] RdO)=R.i h Rf(vi)=Rj., (26)
1argc v ,
(20)
h= Fa is R,(q)= (& - Rid) e- +Ra. With R, - Rj,, =
PiW+t2) ' l/(l+lrf)then
Byevaluating Rat time +defined byequation(18),
we find
l+Rf The values of the left-hand side of (27) are listed in
h=
i+e-"t table 3 and plotted versus vi in figure 5. A least-
The best numerical fit of the force curve is obtained squares fit of these data gives
for the values Slope=-C= - 5 . 4 7 2 ~1 0 - 3 ~ c m - '
1, = 68 ps tf=263 PS. (22) Intercept= -ln(l+pf)= -1.706.

31
 Conclusions
This experiment offers several advantages:
1. Most measurements are computer-controlled
- 030 anddigitized.
2. Results are based on time and force measure-
ments, leading to an increased accuracy.
- 0.35 3. Approximations were all justified and checked
experimentally.
4. Students are exposed to modelling and curve
- 0.40 fitting.

- 013
References
Barford N C 1969 Experimental Measurements:
- 0.50 Precision, Error and Truth (NewYork:Addison-
Wesley)seep 102,Pb37
Bernard C H 1972 Laboratory Experiments in College
Physics4th cdn (New York Wiley)
30 40 50 60 70 * Chemical Rubber Company 1966 CRC Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics 47th edn (Boca Raton, FL
v, ("SI
CRC)
Flgurel. PlotofIn[FI~+)Il/(l+p~1venusv,,the
McAlexander A 1979 Experimentsfor TechnicolPhysics
4th edn (Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon)
incoming speed of the hammer's centre of mass. M o m E P and Ertel J P 1988 Bull. Am. Phys. Soc.
28 January, paper ED6
Pennwalt Corporation Kynar Pier0 Film, Application
Notes
Pugh E M and Winslow G R 1966 The Analysis of
Physical Measurements (New York Addison-Wesley)
Sutton R M 1938DemonstrotionExperiments in Physics
(New York McGraw-Hill)
The quantity 1/(1+ pfl predicted by this model is White M W and Manning K V 1954 Experimental
0.843. This is a 1.5% deviation from the measured College Physics 3rd edn (NewYork McGraw-Hill)
value of0.856. Wunderlich F J and Shaw D E 1983 Am. J. Phys. 51
797-801

32