particular, it is not mentioned that these are conven-

tions, that they do not follow by any logical necessity

from more basic ideas. The convention about length A B
of a rod is at variance with relativistic procedures.
When two clocks inthesame reference frame are
synchronized by means of light signals we allow for
the time it takes the signals to travel from oneclock to I
the other; we want the reading of one clock to agree Before impact
with that of the other, not with the information re-
I
ceived from the other. Yet when we define the length I
of a moving body we take the information received I
by the observer at its face value. A I B
If the opposite convention is made about length-
if the two events are required to be slmultaneous in
the frame of the body rather than thatof the observer
-then it would follow that a moving rod becomes I
elongated rather than shrunk. But it is legitimate to I
After impact
make any convention if that is convenient. What is
objectionable is the lack of emphasis, and the seeming
lack of realization, that conventions are being made
in this case. Hence m, v, = mb ub = L,
and m, U, = mb ub = Lz.
Reference Kinetic energy before impact
French A P 1968 Special Relativity (New York: +
= (rn,v; -+ mbv;)/2 = L;(I /m, 1 /mb)/2.
W W Norton) p96 Similarly kinetic energy after impact
M Nicola = L: (1 /m, + 1/mb)/2.
Shimer College - kinetic energy after impact
Let e -
Mount Carroll kinetic energy before impact ‘
Illinois = L;/L: = 1 2 I v ; = .;/v;.
USA +
Therefore e = u,/u, = u b / u b = (U, I(b)/(ua f ub) .
relative velocity after impact
Hence e =
relative velocity before impact ‘
Impact R M Helsabn
Canford School
Dear Sir, Canford Magna
In teaching thetheory of simple impact between Dorset
spheres to A level students I find the algebra normally
used to establish that the ratio of the relative veloci-
ties after andbefore impact is equal to the ratio of the Teaching the concept of heat
square roots of the corresponding kinetic energies to
be complicated, tedious and uninformative. If we take Dear Sir,
as our frame of reference one~movingwith the centre I was interested to read J W Warren’s article ‘The
of mass of the colliding spheres, the algebra is con- teaching of the concept of heat’ (Physics Education 7
siderably reduced and the procedure more interesting 41-44).
and informative, In April 1959, I went on a short course for teachers
Referring to the diagram, A and B are two spheres of sixth form physics at the Cavendish Laboratory,
of masses m, and mb and velocities v, and ub which Cambridge. During the course we were taken to task
after impact become U, and ub, all velocities being by a lecturer from theEngineering Department for our
measured relative to the centre of mass of A and B, inability to teach the correct concept of heat. We were
which in the assumed absence of a gravitational field advised to read Thermodynamics by J H Keenan(1954)
will move with auniform velocity throughoutthe At this time, the definition of heat acceptable to the
impact. Nowthe momentum of A plus the momentum Oxford and Cambridge Joint Board for 0 or A level
of B relative to their centre of mass is zero. was roughly as follows: heat is a form of energy and
395