See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272407789

Maximizing kinetic energy transfer in one-dimensional many-body collisions

Article  in  European Journal of Physics · March 2015

DOI: 10.1088/0143-0807/36/2/025013

CITATIONS READS

10 3,558

2 authors:

Bernard Ricardo Paul Lee

NUS High School of Mathematics and Science National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore
17 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS    350 PUBLICATIONS   6,571 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Physics Olympiad View project

Applying Mathematical Reasoning in Physics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bernard Ricardo on 07 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Maximizing kinetic energy transfer in one-dimensional many-body collisions

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2015 Eur. J. Phys. 36 025013

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/36/2/025013)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 155.69.97.18
This content was downloaded on 04/02/2015 at 01:32

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

 European Journal of Physics
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 025013 (12pp) doi:10.1088/0143-0807/36/2/025013

Maximizing kinetic energy transfer in one-

dimensional many-body collisions
Bernard Ricardo1,2 and Paul Lee2
1
Department of Physics and Engineering, NUS High School of Mathematics and
Science, 20 Clementi Ave 1, Singapore 129957
2
Natural Sciences and Science Education, National Institute of Education, 1 Nanyang
Walk, Singapore 637616

E-mail: [email protected]

Received 16 September 2014, revised 19 November 2014

Accepted for publication 14 January 2015
Published 4 February 2015

Abstract
The main problem discussed in this paper involves a simple one-dimensional
two-body collision, in which the problem can be extended into a chain of one-
dimensional many-body collisions. The result is quite interesting, as it pro-
vides us with a thorough mathematical understanding that will help in
designing a chain system for maximum energy transfer for a range of collision
types. In this paper, we will show that there is a way to improve the kinetic
energy transfer between two masses, and the idea can be applied recursively.
However, this method only works for a certain range of collision types, which
is indicated by a range of coefficients of restitution. Although the concept of
momentum, elastic and inelastic collision, as well as Newton’s laws, are taught
in junior college physics, especially in Singapore schools, students in this level
are not expected to be able to do this problem quantitatively, as it requires
rigorous mathematics, including calculus. Nevertheless, this paper provides
nice analytical steps that address some common misconceptions in students’
way of thinking about one-dimensional collisions.

Keywords: collision, coefficient of restitution, kinetic energy, energy transfer,

chain-collision, optimization

1. Introduction

In 1968, it was observed that if one drops a small ‘Superball’ immediately after a large one,
one directly above the other, the small ball, on rebounding from the large one, appears to
shoot into the air [1]. This demonstration is quite interesting to both physics teachers and
students, as the phenomenon apparently shows a violation of the conservation of energy. This
velocity amplification effect was described theoretically using three different theoretical
0143-0807/15/025013+12$33.00 © 2015 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK 1
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 025013 B Ricardo and P Lee

models by Harter in 1971 [2]. An extension of the problem to multiple bodies was described
by Kerwin in 1972 [3]. These phenomena, with surprising and counterintuitive results, are
used regularly in many forms in classrooms as teaching demonstrations and novel methods
[4] of analysing the problem of chain-collisions and are still of interest to teachers and
students.
A one-dimensional chain-collision is a series of collisions between masses that are
arranged in a straight line, as shown in the figure below. The collisions happen sequentially,
and it is assumed that there is no energy lost to the surroundings between two collisions. In
the case of a chain-accident involving cars of different masses, for example, the cars are
initially far apart. In the Superball demonstration, however, the separations between the balls
are negligible, yet the collisions can still be assumed to occur sequentially, as the energy wave
takes time to travel through the balls. As such, the time taken between any two collisions is
not important as long as each collision is finished before the next starts or each collision is
assumed to occur instantaneously [5]. For simplicity, we will only discuss the case where the
first mass has a fixed initial velocity and the rest of the masses are initially at rest. None-
theless, the analysis is still valid for a Superball where all masses have initial velocity, as the
analysis for each collision can always be done in the rest frame of one ball. As a natural
extension to the Superball demonstration, the question ‘What would happen if more than one
Superball is used?’ often arises.
In our analysis, m1 indicates the mass of the first body, v1 indicates the velocity of the first
body, m 2 indicates the mass of the last body, and μi indicates the i th mass that is put in
between m1 and m 2 .

Our paper aims to show the effect of inserting mass(es) in between two masses for the
maximum kinetic energy transfer and how the coefficient of restitution affects it in a chain-
collision. From a simplistic view point, one would assume that increasing the number of
collisions would give rise to a lower energy transfer, as each collision increases the amount of
energy lost, and the maximum energy transfer occurs when the first mass becomes stationary
after collision. In this paper, we will show that the final situation after each collision seems
counter-intuitive, as maximum kinetic energy transfer can actually be improved by putting the
right mass(es) in between. This maximum energy transfer does not happen when the first
mass loses all its kinetic energy, as the coefficient of restitution limits the amount of the
energy transfer.
The coefficient of restitution, which is basically the ratio between the relative velocity
after collision and the relative velocity before collision, as will be explained in the theory, is a
very important concept to understand the behaviour of two masses in one-dimensional col-
lisions. For two materials, this coefficient is assumed to be constant, and it is independent of
the initial velocities of both masses. This assumption can be understood, as one could just
move to the rest frame of one mass and perform exactly the same analysis. A common
misconception is that the ratio of kinetic energy lost to the initial kinetic energy, instead of the
ratio of relative velocities, is taken to be constant for a collision. This cannot be true, as
energy is not an invariant quantity. As such, the percentage of energy lost is different if the
analysis is done in a different frame of reference. Thus, in general, the coefficient of resti-
tution can be taken as the parameter which characterizes a collision. Some exceptions occur
for viscoelastic particles, in which the coefficient of restitution depends on the masses of the
bodies as well as their relative velocity [6]. Although this problem has been analysed

2
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 025013 B Ricardo and P Lee

rigorously and more generally for constant and non-constant coefficients of restitution by
Poschel and Brilliantov [7], in this paper we discuss a simplified specific case of chain-
collisions in great detail for teaching purposes.

2. Theory

Newton’s second law states that the total external force acting on a system equals the rate of
change of the system’s momentum. This implies that when there is no external force acting on
the system, the momentum of the system remains constant. This is the fundamental principle
of the conservation of momentum. If instead we consider two separate systems interacting
with each other, the force of interaction acting on one system would equal the rate of change
of the momentum of that particular system. From Newton’s third law we understand that the
force acting on the second system will be equal in magnitude but opposite to the direction of
the force acting on the first system. This is known as an action–reaction pair. Hence, in a
given amount of time, the amount of increase (or decrease) in the momentum of the first
system will be compensated by the amount of decrease (or increase) in the momentum of the
second. This perspective allows us to arrive at the same concept: the total momentum of the
combined system remains constant.
Interactions between two bodies can happen through contact forces such as normal force
and friction force, as well as non-contact forces such as gravitational force and magnetic
force. Collision is the simplest example of mechanical interactions. Although the normal force
between the two bodies varies with time during the short duration of the collision, con-
servation of momentum still holds. For elastic collisions, which cannot happen in a real
experiment, the total kinetic energy of the system is conserved, as we assume no energy is
lost. For dissipative collisions, some kinetic energy is lost, mostly to the internal degrees of
freedom as phonons and some to the surroundings (mainly as sound).
The conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy for one-dimensional
elastic collisions form a concept of coefficient of restitution, which tells us about the ratio of
the relative velocity of the two bodies after collision to their relative velocity before collision.
Since we are dealing with one-dimensional collisions, it will be redundant to use vector
notation in expressing velocities. Instead, we will use a positive sign to indicate that the body
is moving to the right and a negative sign to indicate that the body is moving to the left.
Let m denote the mass, v denote the velocity, K denote the kinetic energy, and prime (′)
denote the condition after collision. Index 1 refers to the first body, and index 2 refers to the
second body.
Before collision,

v1 > v2 for the collision to happen.

After collision,

v1′ ⩽ v2′. The inequality is such, because if we suppose v1′ > v2′, the interaction force between
the two bodies still exists to change the momenta of both bodies. The collision ends when at
least the equality holds, which happens in perfectly inelastic collisions.

3
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 025013 B Ricardo and P Lee

Conservation of momentum yields

m1 v1 + m 2 v2 = m1 v1′ + m 2 v2′

m1 ( v1 − v1′ ) = m 2 ( v2′ − v2 ). (1)

For a perfectly elastic collision, conservation of kinetic energy yields
1 1 1 1
m1 v12 + m 2 v22 = m1 v1′ 2 + m 2 v2′ 2
2 2 2 2
m1 ( v1 − v1′ )( v1 + v1′ ) = m 2 ( v2′ − v2 )( v2′ + v2 ). (2)
Combining equations (1) and (2) yields
v1 + v1′ = v2 + v2′

v1 − v2 = v2′ − v1′. (3)

Since v1 > v2, it implies v1′ < v2′ for both sides to yield positive values. This result is what
is usually taught in a high school physics class: the absolute value of the relative velocity of
the two bodies remains constant after a perfectly elastic collision. More details may be found
in any physics textbooks [8].
Using the definition of the coefficient of restitution (e), we have
v2′ − v1′
e=− . (4)
v2 − v1
It is obvious that the value of e equals one if the collision is perfectly elastic and zero if
the collision is perfectly inelastic (as v1′ = v2′ ). This suggests that for any dissipative collision
in between, the coefficient of restitution lies in between zero and one. Hence, e ∈ [0,1].
The first part of this paper shows that, for one-dimensional elastic two-body collisions, it
is impossible to transfer the whole kinetic energy of a moving body to a stationary body
unless they have identical masses. It then shows that for any dissipative collisions in general
between two bodies, the maximum kinetic energy transfer still happens when their masses are
identical, independent of the coefficient of restitution. The second part of this paper extends
the problem into three-body and four-body chain-collisions. The analysis is then extended to
many-body chain-collisions in general, for elastic as well as dissipative collisions. This paper
aims to show that there is a method to increase the percentage of kinetic energy that is
transferred from one body to another by inserting intermediary bodies in between, but the
method does not work for all values of coefficient of restitution. This percentage can be
increased depending on the number as well as the masses of the intermediary bodies and the
value of the coefficient of restitution.

2.1. Two-body collisions

In general, for two-body collisions with a coefficient of restitution e ∈ [0,1], the velocities of
the two bodies after the collision can be obtained from equations (1) and (4),
m1 v1 + m 2 v2 = m1 v1′ + m 2 v2′
v2′ − v1′
e=−
v2 − v1

4
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 025013 B Ricardo and P Lee

v2′ = v1′ − e ( v2 − v1 )
m1 v1 + m 2 v2 = ( m1 + m 2 ) v1′ − em 2 ( v2 − v1 )
which yields
( m1 − em 2 ) m 2 (1 + e)
v1′ = v1 + v2 (5)
m1 + m 2 m1 + m 2

m1 (1 + e) ( m 2 − em1 )
v2′ = v1 + v2 . (6)
m1 + m 2 m1 + m 2
In matrix form,
⎛ v1′ ⎞ ⎛ m1 − em 2 m 2 (1 + e) ⎞ v1 ⎛ x−e 1 + e ⎞ v1
⎜ ⎟=
1
⎜ ⎟
⎝ v2 ⎠ m1 + m 2 ⎝ m1 (1 + e) m 2 − em1 ⎠ v2
′ ( ) =
1
x+ 1
⎜
⎝ x (1 + e ) 1 ( )
⎟
− ex ⎠ v2
(7)

m
where x = m 1 .
2
Let the initial velocity of the second body v2 be zero. Even students with a good
understanding of physics concepts may wrongly think that to transfer 100% of the kinetic
energy of the first body to the second one requires v1′ to be zero, and this should turn out to be
the maximum energy transfer. As we can see from the expression for v1′, the only possibility
for this to happen is when m1 = em 2, that is, the type of collision, which is indicated by the
coefficient of restitution e, between the two bodies affects the relation between m1 and m 2 for
maximum kinetic energy transfer. With this intuition, for perfectly elastic collision e = 1, the
requirement is for the two masses to be equal. And for perfectly inelastic collision e = 0,
m1 = 0; i.e., the first body does not have mass and kinetic energy in the first place. However,
we will show that by giving up all the kinetic energy of the first body, it does not transfer the
maximum possible amount of kinetic energy to the second body; rather, it will contribute to
the amount of energy lost. Hence, this intuition fails.
Let us see the amount of the kinetic energy transfer.

1 ⎡ m1 (1 + e) ⎤ 2 (1 + e)2m1 m 2 ⎜⎛ 1
2
1 ⎞
K2′ = m 2 v2′ 2 = m 2 ⎢ ⎥ v1 = m1 v12⎟
2 2 ⎣ m1 + m 2 ⎦ ( m1 + m 2 ) 2 ⎝ 2 ⎠

(1 + e)2m1 m 2
K2′ = K1.
( m1 + m 2 ) 2
The portion of the initial kinetic energy of the first body that is transferred to the second
body is given by

K2′ (1 + e)2m1 m 2 (1 + e)2x

η= = = (8)
K1 ( m1 + m 2 ) 2 (1 + x )2
m
where x = m 1 . It is obvious that setting e = 1 (perfectly elastic collision) maximizes this
2
transferred kinetic energy and yields
4m 1 m 2 4x
ηelastic = = . (9)
2
( m1 + m 2 ) (1 + x )2
But for the general value of e, to see the relation between m1 and m 2 that will maximize
η, we have to set the first derivative of η to be zero and check the second derivative of η.
5
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 025013 B Ricardo and P Lee

dη ⎛ (1 + x )2 − 2x (1 + x ) ⎞ 1−x
= (1 + e)2 ⎜ ⎟ = (1 + e)2
dx ⎝ (1 + x ) 4
⎠ (1 + x )3

d 2η − (1 + x )3 − 3(1 − x )(1 + x )2 x−2

= (1 + e)2 = 2(1 + e)2 .
dx 2 (1 + x ) 6 (1 + x ) 4
dη d2η
dx
= 0 gives us x = 1 and 2 < 0 at x = 1, i.e., maximum η. This tells us that the coefficient
dx
of restitution, i.e., the type of collision, does not really affect the relation between m1 and m 2
that maximizes η. This is contrary to the previous intuition, m1 = em 2, or x = e; that is, the
type of collision between the two bodies affects the relation between m1 and m 2 for maximum
energy transfer.
Next, if a general type of collision is assumed, to transfer 100% of the kinetic energy of
the first body to the second one, we have from equation (8),

(1 + e)2x
=1
(1 + x )2

x − (1 + e) x + 1 = 0

1+e± (e + 3)(e − 1)
x = . (10)
2
Since 0 ⩽ e ⩽ 1, there is only one real solution (for e = 1 ), namely, x = 1; that is,
m1 = em 2, which reproduces the known result for perfectly elastic collisions.
As we have shown, contrary to what many people will intuitively suggest, maximum
transferred kinetic energy does not happen when the first body becomes stationary after the
collision; it happens when the two masses are identical, regardless of whether the collision is
elastic or dissipative. This is because, by giving up all the kinetic energy of the first body,
more energy is lost to the surroundings rather than transferred to the second body. Thus the
maximum portion of the initial kinetic energy of the first body that is transferred to the second
body is given by
1
ηmax = (1 + e)2 (11)
4
and for a perfectly elastic collision, it is equal to one.

2.2. Three-body chain-collisions

Suppose m1 and m 2 are fixed; m 2 is initially stationary, as in the previous case. What if we are
allowed to insert a third stationary mass μ in the middle?

Using the same analogy and from equation (7), after the first collision between m1 and μ,
⎛ v1′ ⎞ 1 ⎛⎜ m1 − e1 μ μ ( 1 + e1 ) ⎞⎟ ⎛ v1 ⎞
⎜ ⎟= ⎜ ⎟⎜ v ⎟
⎝ vμ′ ⎠ m1 + μ ⎝ m1 ( 1 + e1 ) μ − e1 m1 ⎠ ⎝ μ ⎠

6
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 025013 B Ricardo and P Lee

and after the second collision (indicated by double-prime) between μ and m 2 ,

⎛ vμ″ ⎞ 1 ⎛⎜ μ − e2 m 2 m 2 ( 1 + e2 ) ⎞⎟ ⎛ vμ′ ⎞
⎜ ⎟= ⎜ ⎟.
⎝ v2″ ⎠ μ + m 2 ⎜⎝ μ ( 1 + e2 ) m 2 − e2 μ ⎟⎠ ⎝ v2′ ⎠
Since m 2 and μ are initially stationary, we have
m1 μ ( 1 + e1 )( 1 + e2 )
v2″ = v1. (12)
( m1 + μ)( μ + m 2 )
We shall also see how much the amount of the transferred kinetic energy is.
1
K2″ = m 2 v2″ 2
2
1 ⎡ m1 μ ( 1 + e1 )( 1 + e2 ) ⎤
2
= m2 ⎢ ⎥
2 ⎣ ( m1 + μ)( μ + m 2 ) ⎦

v12 =
( 1 + e1)2 ( 1 + e2 )2m1m 2 μ2 ⎜⎛ 1 m v 2⎟⎞.
( m1 + μ)2 ( μ + m 2 )2 ⎝2 1 1
⎠

The portion of the initial kinetic energy of the first body that is transferred to the second
body is given by

K2″ ( 1 + e1 )2 ( 1 + e2 )2 m1 m 2 μ2
η= = . (13)
K1 ( m1 + μ)2 ( μ + m 2 )2
From equation (13), it is again obvious that varying the third mass to maximize η will
yield a result that is independent of e1 and e2 , that is, independent of both types of collisions,
elastic or dissipative. When this condition is satisfied, neither m1 nor μ is required to be
stationary after the collisions, as concluded in the earlier section.
The first and second derivatives of η are
dη ( m1 + μ)( μ + m 2 ) − μ ( m1 + m 2 + 2μ)
= 2 ( 1 + e1 )2 ( 1 + e2 )2 m1 m 2 μ
dx ( m1 + μ)3 ( μ + m 2 )3

dη m1 m 2 − μ 2
= k1 μ
dx ( m1 + μ)3 ( μ + m 2 )3
2 2
where k1 = 2 ( 1 + e1 ) ( 1 + e2 ) m1 m 2 .

d 2η
= k1
( )
m1 m 2 − 3μ2 ( m1 + μ)( μ + m 2 ) − 3μ m1 m 2 − μ2 ( )( m 1 + m 2 + 2μ)
dx 2 ( m1 + μ) 4 ( μ + m 2 ) 4
dη d2η
dx
= 0 gives us μ = m1 m 2 and 2 < 0 when μ = m1 m 2 , i.e., maximum η.
dx
Thus the maximum portion of the initial kinetic energy of the first body that is transferred
to the second body is given by

⎡ ( 1 + e1 )( 1 + e2 ) m1 m 2 ⎤2 ( 1 + e )2 ( 1 + e )2 m m
ηmax = ⎢ ⎥ = 1 2 1 2
. (14)
⎢⎣ ( m1 + m1 m 2 )( m 2 + m1 m 2 ) ⎥⎦ ( m1 + m 2 ) 4

7
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 025013 B Ricardo and P Lee

To check whether inserting a third mass improves the maximum energy transfer, we
compare this with the result of ηmax for two-body collisions of any type of collision. Hence, let
us first consider two extreme cases: perfectly elastic and perfectly inelastic collisions.
For perfectly elastic collisions, we have for two-body collisions (equation (9)),
4m1 m 2
η2 − body =
( m1 + m 2 ) 2
and for three-body chain-collisions (substituting the maximum values for coefficients of
restitution, i.e., e1 = e2 = 1, to equation (14)),
16m1 m 2
η3 − body = .
4
( m1 + m2 )
Checking the ratio between these two,
η3 − body 4( m1 + m 2 )2
=
η2 − body 4
( m1 + m2 )

η3 − body 2( m1 + m 2 ) ⎛ m1 − m2 ⎞
2
−1= −1=⎜ ⎟ ⩾ 0.
η2 − body ( m1 + m2 )
2
⎝ m1 + m2 ⎠

It is then obvious that η3 − body ⩾ η2 − body .

For perfectly inelastic collisions, we have for two-body collisions (substituting the
minimum value for coefficient of restitution, i.e., e = 0, to equation (8)),
m1 m 2
η2 − body =
( m1 + m 2 ) 2
and for three-body chain-collisions (substituting the minimum values for coefficients of
restitution, i.e. e1 = e2 = 0, to equation (14))
m1 m 2
η3 − body = .
4
(
m1 + m 2 )
Checking the ratio between these two,
η3 − body ( m1 + m 2 ) 2
=
η2 − body 4
( m1 + m2 )

η3 − body m1 + m 2 2 m1 m 2
−1= −1=− ⩽ 0.
η2 − body 2 2
( m1 + m2 ) ( m1 + m2 )

It is then obvious that η3 − body ⩽ η2 − body .

Let us consider a general type of collision,
η3 − body
=
( 1 + e1)2 ( 1 + e2 )2 ( m1 + m 2 )2 .
η2 − body 4
(1 + e)2 ( m1 + m2 )
η3 − body
If we set η2 − body
− 1 to be at least zero for improvement in the kinetic energy transfer,
we obtain

8
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 025013 B Ricardo and P Lee

2
( 1 + e1)( 1 + e2 ) ( m1 + m 2 ) ⩾ (1 + e) ( m1 + m2 ) .

If we consider a special case where e1 = e1 = e, and since e is upper-bounded by 1, we

have
2
(m 1
12 + m 21 2 ) − 1 ⩽ e ⩽ 1. (15)
m1 + m 2

This theoretical phenomenon gives us an idea that inserting a third particle in between
two bodies will enable an increase in the maximum energy transfer if the coefficient of
2

restitution is bigger than

(m1
1 2 + m 21 2 )
− 1 and will fail to increase the maximum energy
m1 + m 2
transfer if the coefficient of restitution is less than this value. A trivial case occurs when all
three masses are identical, as it yields e = 1 and η3 − body = 1, as expected. Another intuitive
case occurs when e = 0, as the masses will stick together after each collision; adding another
mass in between will obviously decrease the final velocity of the system and the kinetic
energy transferred to m 2 .

2.3. Four-body chain collisions

Since we now have an idea that inserting a third body in between two bodies improves the
maximum kinetic energy transfer for certain types of collisions, it can always be extended to
four-body chain-collisions. Suppose m1 and m 2 are fixed; m 2, μ1, and μ2 are initially sta-
tionary.

Analogous to the previous result for three-body chain-collisions, we have μ1 = m1 μ2

and μ2 = μ1 m 2 for maximum kinetic energy transfer, regardless of the type of each col-
lision. It is equivalent to μ1 = m12 3m 21 3 and μ2 = m11 3m 2 2 3. These results can also be
obtained using an analogy to equations (8) and (13),

( 1 + e1)2m1μ1 ( 1 + e2 )2μ1μ2 ( 1 + e3 )2μ2 m 2

η= . (16)
( m1 + μ1)2 ( μ1 + μ2 )2 ( μ2 + m 2 )2
∂η
∂μ1
= 0 yields
⎡ ⎤
k 2 μ2 ( )(
⎢ m1 + μ1 μ1 + μ2 − μ1 m1 + 2μ1 + μ2 ⎥ ) ( )
2⎢ 3 3 ⎥=0
( μ2 + m 2 ⎣) m1 + μ1 μ1 + μ2 ( ⎦ )( )
2 2 2
where k 2 = ( 1 + e1 ) ( 1 + e2 ) ( 1 + e3 ) m1 m 2 μ1 μ2 .

m1 μ1 + m1 μ2 + μ12 + μ1 μ2 = m1 μ1 + 2μ12 + μ1 μ2

μ1 = m1 μ 2

9
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 025013 B Ricardo and P Lee

∂η
and ∂μ 2
= 0 yields
⎡
k 2 μ1 ⎢ μ1 + μ2( )( μ2 + m 2 ) − μ2 ( μ1 + 2μ2 + m 2 ) ⎤⎥ = 0
2⎢ ⎥
( m1 + μ1 ⎣ ) ( μ1 + μ2 )3 ( μ2 + m 2 )3 ⎦

μ1 μ2 + μ1 m 2 + μ2 2 + μ2 m 2 = μ1 μ2 + 2μ2 2 + μ2 m 2
μ2 = μ1 m 2
as expected.
The maximum portion of the kinetic energy transfer for four-body chain-collisions is
given by

η4 − body =
( 1 + e1)2 ( 1 + e2 )2 ( 1 + e3 )2m1m 2 . (17)
6
( m11 3 + m 21 3 )
To check whether this method increases the portion of the kinetic energy transfer, we
have to check the ratio. We shall now consider the case where e1 = e2 = e3 = e. From
equations (14) and (17),
4
η4 − body (1 + e)2 ( m1 + m2 )
= .
η3 − body 6
(m 1
13 + m 21 3 )
η3 − body
For improvement, we set η2 − body
− 1 to be at least zero.
2 3
(1 + e) ( m1 + (
m 2 ) ⩾ m11 3 + m 21 3 , )
and since e is upper-bounded by 1, the condition for improvement is
3
(m 1
13 + m 21 3 ) − 1 ⩽ e ⩽ 1. (18)
2
(m 1
12 + m 21 2 )
When the coefficient of restitution is within this range, putting two bodies in between the
existing two bodies can increase the maximum kinetic energy transfer. This conclusion can
also be obtained intuitively and qualitatively, as the existence of m 3 increases the portion of
the kinetic energy transfer from m1 to m 4, and in the same way, the existence of m 4 increases
the portion of the kinetic energy transfer from m 3 to m 2, as has been proven for three-body
chain-collisions. When this condition is satisfied, none of the mass is required to be stationary
after the collision, as concluded before.
Now, comparing the lower bounds for the coefficients of restitution for three-body chain-
collisions with two-body collisions,
3
(m 1
13 + m 21 3 )
2 3 3
(m 1
12 + m 21 2 ) =
(m 1
13
)
+ m 21 3 ( m1 + m 2 )
=
(x 13
)
+ 1 (x + 1)
.
2 4 4
(m 1
12 + m 21 2 ) (m 1
12 + m 21 2 ) (x 12 +1 )
m1 + m 2

10
Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 025013 B Ricardo and P Lee

This function has a global minimum at x = 1. Hence,

(m
1
1 3+ m 21 3 ) − 1 ⩽ e ⩽ 1 is a
2
(m
1
1 2 + m 21 2 )
2

stricter requirement compared to

(m 1
1 2 + m 21 2 ) − 1 ⩽ e ⩽ 1.
m1 + m 2

2.4. Many-body chain-collision

Since we now have the idea that inserting a body in between m1 and m 2, with m 2 initially at
rest, can improve the maximum percentage of the kinetic energy transfer, and that the idea can
be applied recursively, we intuitively say we can put n bodies in between m1 and m 2 to
{
improve it, where the masses are given by μi ∣ 1 ⩽ i ⩽ n , so that there will be n + 1 }
collisions and n + 2 bodies in total.
Assuming coefficients of restitution for all collisions are identical, the value should be
within
n+1
(m 1
1 n+1
+ m 21 n + 1 ) − 1 ⩽ e ⩽ 1. (19)
n
(m 1
1n
+ m 21 n )
For maximum improvement to the kinetic energy transfer,
⎧ m1 μ 2 for i = 1
⎪
μi = ⎨ μi − 1 μi + 1 for 1 < i < n . (20)
⎪
⎩ μn − 1 m 2 for i = n

This condition is equivalent to

m1 μi μn
= = , ∀ i ∈ [1, n − 1]. (21)
μ1 μi + 1 m2

If this constant mass-ratio is defined as x, we have the final velocity of each mass in
between m1 and m 2 to be
[x (1 + e) ]i
vμi = (x − e) v1, (22)
(x + 1)i + 1
the final velocity of m1 to be
x−e
v1, (23)
x+1
and the final velocity of m 2 to be
⎡ x (1 + e) ⎤n + 1
⎣⎢ x + 1 ⎦⎥
v1. (24)

The maximum percentage of the kinetic energy of m1 that is transferred to m 2 for general
types of collisions where n bodies are inserted in between is given by

11
 Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 025013 B Ricardo and P Lee

(1 + e)2(n + 1) m1 m 2
η(n + 2) − body = 2(n + 1)
. (25)
( m11 n + 1 + m 21 n + 1)
3. Discussion and conclusion

We conclude that there is a way for us to improve the kinetic energy transfer from one body
(mass m1 ) to another body (mass m 2), which is initially at rest, by inserting a mass in between
the two of them. This idea can be applied recursively to inserting n masses in between, as
n+1

long as the coefficient of restitution for each collision is bigger than

(m
1
1 n+1 + m 21 n + 1 ) − 1,
n
(m
1
1 n + m 21 n )
and the mass of each body is chosen appropriately, so that the mass ratio between two
adjacent masses is equal throughout the chain-collision. However, this mass ratio does not
depend on the coefficient of restitution at all.
This result is counter-intuitive, as both physics students and teachers with a strong
conceptual understanding could have wrongly suggested that putting more masses in between
increases the amount of energy lost to the surroundings, and, as such, this method could not
possibly increase the amount of energy transfer.
One may have also expected that for maximum energy transfer to occur, the first mass
has to come to rest. However, the result in this paper shows that this condition does not lead
to maximum energy transfer in most cases, as this condition may result in more energy lost
instead of more energy transferred. This paper also reaffirms the idea that the coefficient of
restitution (a fraction of relative velocity) characterizes a collision, as opposed to the alternate
but wrong conception that it is a fraction of kinetic energy lost, which characterizes a
collision.

Acknowledgment

One of the authors, Bernard Ricardo, would like to thank NUS High School of Mathematics
and Science for sponsoring this work.

References

[1] Mellen W R 1968 Superball rebound projectiles Am. J. Phys. 36 845

[2] Harter W G 1971 Velocity amplification in collision experiments involving superballs Am. J. Phys.
39 656–63
[3] Kerwin J D 1972 Velocity, momentum, and energy transmissions in chain collisions Am. J. Phys.
40 1152–7
[4] Santos J, de Oliveira B P and Nelson O R 2012 Impedance of rigid bodies in one-dimensional
elastic collisions Rev. Brasil. Ensino Fisica 34 1–4
[5] Muller P and Poschel T 2011 Two-ball problem revisited: limitations of event-driven modeling
Phys. Rev. E 83 041304
[6] Ramírez R, Pöschel T, Brilliantov N V and Schwager T 1999 Coefficient of restitution of colliding
viscoelastic spheres Phys. Rev. E 60 4465–72
[7] Poschel T and Brilliantov N V 2001 Extremal collision sequences of particles on a line: optimal
transmission of kinetic energy Phys. Rev. E 63 021505
[8] Young H D, Freedman R A and Ford A L 2012 Sears and Zemanskys University Physics: With
Modern Physics 13th edn (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley)

12

View publication stats