The force of repulsion is directly proportional to the speed of the moving object. ![]() The electrons in the stationary object repel the electrons in the moving one. When the moving object strikes the stationary one, the electrons come really close to one another. A better term would be, energy was induced. So, when a moving object strikes a stationary object, why was energy transfered? The truth is, energy wasnt transfered. Well, that is not the textbook definition but it would be better to imagine it as that. Due to transfer of momentum, stuff move right? So we can imagine momentum as the energy possesed by moving objetcs. That is the transfer of momentum via contact forces, which you can see and check everyday, and it happens because of Newton's second law of motion: $$\vec F= \frac \hat r$$Īnd because of the fact that matter is made of atoms with a negative electron cloud around them, making the outter surface of objects reppel.īut why and how is momentum even transferred? That is a good question. This clearly makes the moving object slow down while making the stationary object speed up. What do you mean by "how does repulsion transfer momentum?" Repulsion is a force, and force is equal to change in momentum, it is defined as $\vec F=d\vec p/dt$.Ĭonsider the simple case of two cubes colliding face to face, when one of them touches the other with velocty $\vec v$, both objects feel a force of repulsion (due to their electrons interacting via the electric force), the stationary object feels it in the direction of $\vec v$, while the other feels a repulsion in the opposite direction, but with same magnitude. ![]() The incomplete fusion strength function has also been deduced from the measured recoil range distributions and found to be compatible with those deduced from the measured excitation functions for the same system and beam energy.As you can see in my comment to your question, momentum transfer is due to electric repulsion. The measured forward recoil range distributions of evaporation residues produced through α emitting channels provide experimental signature of strong clustering in F 19 projectile as α and N 15. The forward recoil range distributions data show that the incomplete fusion contribution in the fusion of fragment N 15 is more dominant as compared to the fusion of fragment B 11 with Sm 154 target due to the smaller value of α breakup threshold energy ( E B. From these measurements, the relative contributions of complete and incomplete fusion were separated out. The results indicate the occurrence of incomplete fusion involving the breakup of F 19 into He 4 + N 15 and/or Be 8 + B 11 followed by fusion of one of the fragments with target nucleus Sm 154. The observed incomplete fusion process in the population of α emitting channel residues is explained through the breakup fusion model. The forward recoil range distributions of measured evaporation residues populated through x n / p x n channels were found to be consisting of a single peak only while the evaporation residues populated through α emitting channel had contributions from incomplete fusion also. The entire and fractional linear momentum transfers inferred from these recoil range distributions were used to identify the evaporation residues formed by complete and incomplete fusion mechanisms. Forward recoil range distributions of evaporation residues produced in the system F 19 + Sm 154 were measured at projectile energy ≈ 107 MeV using the offline γ-ray activation technique.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |