Talk:Collision
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
Is it just me or is it surreal, inappropriate and impractical to explore every conceivable instance of physical collision (flyswatters, carpet beating)?
Surely we should stick to broad categories of collision and link out appropriately? --Air 11:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I do not see a problem, I have e.g. used the category racquet sport, leaving out any detail about them just like you seem to wish too. I see currently no long lists or elaborations about details that should be moved to a separate article.--Patrick 15:16, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
- Perhaps you find it odd to have household items and serious matters like missiles in the same overview, but that is what you get when you analyse kinds of collisions.--Patrick 15:28, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
- Hi Patrick. First, I appreciate your enthusiasm for and knowledge of modern guided missile systems. I do find it odd however that an entry for a high-level concept like Collision should include a discussion of explosive vs. non-explosive guided missiles (a low-level topic by anyone's standards), including links to specific missile types. I think we can generalise into a useful high-level point: that modern guidance technology enables collisions to be made between very fast-moving objects. e.g. anti-aircraft missiles, anti-ballistic missiles, etc. Can you think of more examples? --Air 17:57, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- non-explosive vs. explosive means attacking by "just" a collision or attacking by an explosion, that is the essence in this context, not a detail.--Patrick 22:20, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
- I think our whole breakdown of projectile types should be moved to Projectile where it belongs. --Air 09:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- non-explosive vs. explosive means attacking by "just" a collision or attacking by an explosion, that is the essence in this context, not a detail.--Patrick 22:20, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
- Hi Patrick. First, I appreciate your enthusiasm for and knowledge of modern guided missile systems. I do find it odd however that an entry for a high-level concept like Collision should include a discussion of explosive vs. non-explosive guided missiles (a low-level topic by anyone's standards), including links to specific missile types. I think we can generalise into a useful high-level point: that modern guidance technology enables collisions to be made between very fast-moving objects. e.g. anti-aircraft missiles, anti-ballistic missiles, etc. Can you think of more examples? --Air 17:57, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I dropped flyswatter, it is more crushing than colliding.--Patrick 15:35, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
Collisions can be elastic, meaning they conserve energy and momentum, inelastic, meaning they conserve momentum, or totally inelastic (or plastic), meaning they conserve momentum and the two objects stick together.
I'm not sure about the phrasing of this: "inelastic, meaning they conserve momentum" implies that elastic collisions are also inelastic. Should it be "inelastic, meaning they conserve momentum but not energy"?Galaxiaad 19:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, fixed.--Patrick 00:23, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Disambiguate me!
This should be separated into a disambiguation and the "main" collision page... --Ihope127 00:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Split the page as an exercise in wikification, please take a look to make sure I didn't misplaced any link Teferi 15:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
