3 ms·
I could have sworn that a perfect head on collision was basically the same thing as a collision at the same speed into a perfect stationary wall? Mythbusters e
by thatswrong0 8y ago
I could have sworn that a perfect head on collision was basically the same thing as a collision at the same speed into a perfect stationary wall?
Mythbusters experiment: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2n9j62 https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2n9j62
- saagarjha 8y agoNo. If the wall is stationary and infinitely massive, you’d bounce off at the same velocity; if it was moving at the same speed as you you’d bounce off at three times the original velocity. Edit: if the other object is a car, then yes, there is no difference in either case from your perspective.
- amelius 8y agoIf the collision is completely inelastic, then there will be no bouncing. In a car, usually the crumple zone completely absorbs and dissipates all the energy kinetic.
- saagarjha 8y agoYeah, this was assuming an idealized perfectly elastic collision, which is a bit difficult to have in the real world ;)
- sandworm101 8y agoYes, if the cars are identical and collide perfectly enough that both crumple in exact symetry. Each absorbs and so the damage is split, as opposed to hiting a non-absorbing wall. But that is basically impossible to setup.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Dylan16807 8y agoHitting a car is not the same as hitting a wall. All three of these do similar damage, if the cars have equal mass: * 70mph car vs. 70mph car * 140mph car vs. parked car * 70mph car vs. wall. The only real question is whether you consider "140mph impact" to mean "vs. a similar-mass car" or "vs. a wall". These are wildly different impact intensities that should not be confused.
- cs02rm0 8y agoFWIW I was thinking immovable wall rather than parked car for the 140mph impact. The wall is complicated enough for me without thinking about multiple crumple zones, handbrakes, etc.