Christiaan Huygens

Christiaan Huygens' The Motion of Colliding Bodies Author(s): Richard J. Blackwell and Christiaan Huygen Source: Isis, Vol.
68, No. 4 (Dec., 1977), pp. 574-597 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/230011 . Accessed: 18/09/2013 18:45
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Isis.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 200.0.182.46 on Wed, 18 Sep 2013 18:45:50 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Christiaan
Huygens' Colliding
Translated
The
Motion
of
Bodies
by Richard J. Blackwell"l
Hypothesis I: Any body already in motion will continue to move perpetually with the same speed and in a straight line unless it is impeded.2 Hypothesis II: Whatever may be the cause of hard3 bodies rebounding from mutual contact when they collide with one another,4 let us suppose that when two bodies, equal to each other and having equal speed, directly collide with one another, each rebounds with the same speed which it had before the collision. Two bodies are said to directly collide when both their motion and their contact occur in the same straight line which passes through the center of gravity of each body.
Received July 1974: accepted October 1974. *Department of Philosophy, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri 63103. 'The De motu corporum ex percussione appears, along with an opposite-page French version, in Oeuvres compltes de Christiaan Huygens publi&espar la Societe Hollandaise des Sciences (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1888-1950), Vol. XVI, pp. 29-91 (hereafter referred to as Oeuvres). A German translation by F. Hausdorff appears in Ostwald's Klassiker der exakten Wissenschaften, No. 138 (1903), pp. 1-34. The De motu was first published in the Opuscula postuma in 1703, eight years after the death of Huygens (1629-1695), printed from a manuscript copy written by someone else but corrected by Huygens. The exact date of the manuscript version of the De motu is unknown, although it is later than 1673. However, there are numerous indications that Huygens had established all the propositions and their proofs by 1656 at the latest (see the Avertissement in Oeuvres, Vol. XVI, pp. 3-14, for the evidence), which is thus the effective date of origin of the De motu even though minor modifications were clearly made over a long period of years (e.g., the reference to the Horologium oscillatorium of 1673 and the very last paragraph of the treatise). That the mid-i 650s was the period of origin of the present treatise is attested to by Huygens in a letter of July 20, 1656, to G. P. Roberval: "IIy a quelques temps que j'ai quitd toute autre speculation pour m'attacher uniquement a cette matiere de la Percussion dont je pense vous avoir dite autrefois que des Cartes l'avoit traitee si malheureusement. J'ay acheve mon petit ouvrage depuis peu de jours, par lequel je pretens de faire veoir qu'il n'a pas este impeccable non plus dans la Phisique que dans la Geometrie" (Oeuvres, Vol. I, p. .457). 2It is significant that this quite straightforward statement of what has come to be known as the principle of inertial motion is asserted here as axiomatic, indicating its active acceptance by the mid-i 650s. Huygens says (Oeuvres, Vol. XVI, p. 140) that this notion is found in Galileo (which is incorrect), Descartes, and many others. The main source for Huygens no doubt was Descartes, whom he met frequently in his father's house during his formative years in the 1640s and with whose writings he was intimately acquainted. The components of the inertial principle are contained quite clearly in the first and second laws of nature in Descartes's Principiaphilosophiae (1644), II, 37 and 39: "Prima lex naturae: quod unaquaeque res, quantum in se est, semper in eodem statu perseveret; sicque quod semel movetur, semper moveri pergat." "Altera lex naturae: quod omnis motus ex se ipso sit rectus; et ideo quae circulariter moventur, tendere semper ut recedant a centro circuli quem describunt." 3Huygens uses this term (dura) to indicate that both here and throughout this treatise his analysis is restricted to perfectly elastic collisions. As a result (to use modern parlance) both the principle of the conservation of momentum and the principle of the conservation of kinetic energy apply throughout. Regarding the former, see Proposition 6 with our notes; regarding the latter see Proposition 11. For Huygens' later (c. 1667) contributions to the analysis of inelastic collisions, see Oeuvres, Vol. XVI, pp. 161-168. 4Concealed behind this phrase stand the reasons for Huygens' consistent refusal to publish the De motu, despite strong encouragement from several sources prompted by incomplete glimpses of his results. On Jan. 5, 1669, Huygens sent a letter to Henry Oldenburg at the Royal Society "containing the first four rules
ISIS, 1977, 68 (No. 244)
574
THE MOTION OF COLLIDING BODIES
575
Hypothesis III: Both the motion of bodies and their equal or unequal speeds must be understood in relation to other bodies considered to be at rest, even if both sets of bodies happen to be involved in some other common motion.5 As a result, when two bodies collide, then even if each of them is simultaneously subject to some other additional equal motion, they will in no way act on each other with respect to the common motion by which they are each moved. It is as if that additional motion were totally absent. For example, someone who is carried along by a boat which progresses with uniform speed makes two equal balls collide with each other with equal speed as determined in relation to himself and to the parts of the boat. We say then that each ball ought to rebound with an equal speed in relation to the man carried along in the boat, as would clearly also happen if he had made the same balls collide with equal speed while he was standing in a motionless boat or on the ground. Having made these suppositions concerning the collision of equal bodies, we will demonstrate the laws by which they mutually collide; we will then proceed to infer in the proper place6 other hypotheses which we will need for the case of unequal bodies. Proposition 1: If a body collides with another equal body which is at rest, then after the contact the former is at rest and the latter acquires the same speed which was in the body which struck it.
concerning the motion of bodies after mutual impulse, together with their demonstration" (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 1669, No., 46: 925), and on Mar. 18, 1669, he sent a letter to the Journal de Scavans containing a short synopsis of his theory in the form of seven rules without proofs (Oeuvres, Vol. XVI, pp. 179-181.) In a letter of Feb. 4, 1669, Oldenburg "earnestly intreated" Huygens to publish his theory, but the reply ignored the point. Huygens himself explains his refusal to publish. Writing a marginal comment on a draft of an uncompleted and unpublished projected preface for the De motu c. 1690, he says, "Me jam inde ab anno 1652-r54veras leges reperisse quae ad dura seu resistentia pertinent, sed de ijs in lucem edendis supersedisse, quod praeter eas leges superessent quaedam de motus natura nondum penitus mihi nec satis liquido perspecta, quae longiorem meditationem requirebant"(Oeuvres, Vol. XVI, p. 204). What are these additional factors concerning the nature of motion which Huygens did not yet understand? Perhaps he was concerned to determine the essence and true cause of motion and forces, in which case he would be much closer to Descartes than to Newton in his conception of the goal of scientific understanding. Perhaps he was thinking of an unresolved problem left over by Galileo to which he often refers. Just prior to Proposition 5 of the Fourth Day of Galileo's Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences (Edizione Nazionale, Vol. VIII, pp. 292-293) Sagredo expresses amazement over the immense force exerted by the blow of a hammer. Salviati replies that his Academician friend (Galileo) has spent a great deal of time on this question and has solved it with some remarkable new ideas. He promises to relate the explanation at a later discussion, but the promise was not kept in the originally published four days of dialogue. The so-called Sixth Day (first published in 1718) does return to the problem (see Vol. VIII, pp. 319-346). Huygens frequently asserts that Galileo did not go beyond merely stating this problem, and he felt also that his own De motu was inadequate to solve it. At any rate such concerns seem to stand behind the first phrase of Hypothesis 11. The "nature of motion" and the "cause of hard bodies rebounding" are not to be treated in the De motu, only the laws governing collision. 5Hypothesis III is, in effect, Huygens' version of the principle of the relativity of motion. The basic notion was of course well known at the time, but Huygens' extensive and detailed use of it as an instrument of analysis is quite distinctive and contributed in large part to his successes in dealing with the problem of collision. His frequently used illustration of the principle in terms of a boat moving uniformly and parallel to the bank of a river may have been borrowed from Descartes (Principia philosophiae, 111,26), who was also clearly aware of the relativity of motion. Ironically Descartes' failure to use this notion in his analysis of collision is one of the main reasons for the erroneous character of his seven rules of impact (see R. J. Blackwell, "Descartes' Laws of Motion," Isis, 1966, 57:220-234). We might add that Huygens was also concerned with the problem of whether the comparison of relative motions ultimately leads to an absolute motion and thus to an absolute space (see Oeuvres, Vol. XVI, pp. 213-233.) However, this latter issue is irrelevant to the theory of collision formulated in the De motu, and Hypothesis III and its later use do not speak to this question. 6Hypothesis IV ff.
576
RICHARD J. BLACKWELL
Imagine a boat which is floating down river parallel to the bank and so close to the bank that a sailor standing in it can extend his hands to a friend standing on the bank. The sailor holds in his hands, [Fig. I.] A and B, [Fig. 1] two bodies, E and F, suspended on strings. The distance EF is divided in half at the point G. As he moves his hands C together into contact with equal motions as judged in relation to himself and to the boat, at the same time he makes the balls E and F collide with equal speed. Thus it is necessary that the balls rebound from mutual contact with equal speed [Hypothesis II] in relation to the sailor and the boat. Moreover it is supposed that the boat meanwhile has moved toward the left with the speed GE which is the same speed by which the left hand A was moved toward the right. From this it is clear that the sailor's hand A was unmoved in relation to the bank and to his friend standing there, and also that the sailor's hand B was moved in respect to his friend with the speed FE which is double that of GE or FG. Accordingly let us suppose that the friend standing on the bank takes hold of, with his own hand C, the sailor's hand A together with the top of the string from which the ball E is suspended; also he takes hold of, with his hand D, the sailor's hand B which holds the string from which F is suspended. It is apparent then that while the sailor made the balls E and F collide with equal speed as judged in relation to himself and the boat, at the same time his friend standing on the bank made the moving ball F collide with the motionless ball E with a speed FE as judged in relation to himself and to the bank. It is also clear that the sailor who moves the balls as described is not affected in any way by the fact that his friend standing on the bank has taken hold of his hands and the tops of the strings since the motion of the friend's hands is only a companion motion and produces no hindrance for the sailor. For the same reason the friend on the bank who moves the ball F toward the motionless ball E is not affected by the fact that his hands and the sailor's hands are joined, since both hands A and C are at rest in relation to the friend and the bank and both hands B and D are moved with the same speed FE. However, as was said, after mutual contact the balls E and F rebound with equal speed in relation to the sailor and the boat, the ball E with speed GE and the ball F with speed GF, and all the while the boat itself moves toward the left with the speed GE or FG. Hence it follows that in relation to the bank and the friend standing there, the ball F comes to rest after the that collision and the other ball E moves toward the left with a speed of double BGE, is, the speed FE which is the same speed by which the ball F was originally moved toward the ball E. Thus we have shown that when a man standing on the ground makes a body collide with another equal motionless body, then after the contact the former body loses all its motion and the latter acquires all of it. Q.E.D.
577
Proposition 2: If two equal bodies moving with unequal speeds collide with each other, then after the contact .4I they move with their speeds reciprocally exchanged. Let a body E [Fig. 2] be moved toward the right with the speed EH, and an equal body F be moved initially in the opposite direction with the smaller speed FH. They thus collide at H. After their mutual collision I say that the body E is moved toward the left with speed FH, and F toward the right with speed EH. For imagine a man standing on the bank of the river who produces the above motion of bodies by holding in his hands C and D the top of strings from which E and F are suspended; he brings his hands together, as well as the bodies E and F, with the above-mentioned speeds EH and FH. The distance EF is cut in half at G. Further, imagine that a boat moves toward the right with the speed GH. In the boat stands [Fig 3.] another man in relation to whom the ball E is moved only with the speed EG and the ball F with the speed FG. Therefore in relation to him the two balls are moved to their mutual collision with equal speed. Acl.:7 ,i cC lX cordingly if we suppose that with his own hands A and B he has taken hold of the hands C and D of his friend standing on the bank, together with the tops of the strings from which the balls are suspended, then it happens simultaneously that the man standing on the bank makes the balls collide with the speeds EH and FH and the man moving in the boat makes [Fig. 2.]
578
the same balls collide with the equal speeds EG and FG. Thus it follows in the latter case [Hypothesis II] that each ball rebounds from contact with an equal speed, that is, E with the speed GE and F with the speed GF. Further all this time the boat continues to move with the speed GH. Thus in relation to the bank and to the man standing there F will have a speed composed of both GF and GH, that is, equal to EH, while E will have the speed HF which is the difference between the speeds GE and GH. Therefore we have shown that, for a man standing on a bank who makes the balls E and F collide with the speeds EH and FH, after the collision E will rebound with speed FH and F with speed EH. Q.E.D. Furthermore, let both bodies E and F move toward the right [Fig. 3], E with the speed EH and F preceding it with the smaller speed FH. Thus E follows F, and they collide at H. I say that after contact F will advance with the speed EH and E will follow with the speed FH. The demonstration is the same as above. Hypothesis IV: If a larger body collides with a smaller body at rest, it gives some of its motion to it and consequently loses some of its motion. Proposition 3: Any large body is moved by a collision with any small body having any speed whatsoever.7 Imagine a boat moving parallel [Fig. 4.] to the bank of a river, and a sailor C I'D standing in it holding the bodies A and B [Fig. 4] suspended from strings. Let A on the left be larger, and B smaller. His right hand D which holds the body B is motionless in relation to himself and the boat. He then moves his hand C toward D, together with the body A, with the speed AB [Hypothesis IV]. Therefore body A collides with C~~~ B and loses some of its speed, thus continuing to move toward the right with a speed less than AB. Meanwhile, while this is happening, let the boat move toward the left with the speed BA. Thus it happens that while the sailor moves the body A with the speed AB in relation to himself and to the ship which carries him, the same body A as well as the sailor's hand C is motionless in relation to the bank and to an observer standing there. Also the other hand D and the body B will be moved toward the left with the speed BA in relation to the observer, because we assumed that they were motionless in relation to the boat which moves toward the left with the speed BA. Therefore if the observer standing on the bank uses his hands E and F to take hold of the sailor's hands C and D, then it is clear that while the ball A moves toward the
7Proposition 3 is intended by Huygens to be a direct refutation of Descartes's fourth rule of impact: "Quarto, si corpus C plane quiesceret, essetque paulo majus quam B, quacunque cum celeritate B moveretur versus C, nunquam ipsum C moveret, sed ab eo repelleretur in contrariam partem" (Principia philosophiae, II, 49).
579
motionless ball B in relation to the sailor, simultaneously B moves toward A which is motionless and at rest in relation to the observer and the bank. But we said that after the collision the ball A, in relation to the sailor and the boat, moves toward the right with a speed smaller than AB, and that the boat moves toward the.left with the speed BA. Therefore, in relation to the bank and to the observer standing there, it is clear that after the collision A moves somewhat toward the left. Hence it has been shown for an observer standing on the ground that when he makes any small body B having some speed BA collide with any large body A which is at rest, then the body A is put in motion. Q.E.D. Hypothesis V: If two hard bodies collide with each other, and if after the collision one of them retains all the motion which it had, then the motion of the other is neither increased nor decreased. Proposition 4: Whenever two bodies collide with each other, the relative speed of the departing bodies is the same as the relative speed of the approaching bodies. For equal bodies this is clear from Proposition 2. Let us then consider unequal bodies. The first case to be proposed is that in which a small body B moving toward the right collides with a large body A [Fig- 5.] which is at rest [Fig. "% X 5]. I say that after B ?~~~~~I C Cli 4~~ A. -D I the collision the two _ \A bodies move separately with the same speed BA such that if in one unit of time the body B crossed the space BA, then in a later equal unit of time the bodies are found to have separately crossed a space which is equal to BA. For A clearly receives some speed from the collision of the body B. Let this speed be AC, which must be less than the speed BA by which B itself was moved. For if A were equal to B, then A would have acquired the whole speed BA from the collision [Proposition 1]. Next let AC be divided into two equal parts at D, and let AE equal AD. Therefore, if we imagine that these motions take place in a boat which floats toward the left with the speed DA, then it is necessary that before the collision the body A, which was at rest in the boat, moved toward the left with the speed DA in relation to the bank. Furthermore, after the collision, since A was said to be moved in the boat toward the right with the speed AC while the boat itself was moved in the opposite direction with the speed DA, then A will be moved in relation to the bank toward the right with the speed DC or AD. Therefore in relation to the bank the body A has the same speed before and after the collision. Therefore B also [Hypothesis V] in relation to the bank cannot lose any of its speed. Now before the collision B moved toward the right with the speed BE in relation to the bank because in the boat it had the speed BA toward the right while the boat itself was moving in the opposite direction with the speed DA or AE. Therefore after the collision B should be moved with the speed BE in relation to the bank, but toward the left, because the slower motion of the body A prevents it from moving toward the right. Therefore, since after the collision B is moved toward the left with the speed EB in relation to the bank, and A is moved toward the right with the speed AD or EA, it necessarily follows that these bodies depart from each other with a speed composed of both BE and EA, that is, with the speed BA, in relation to both the bank and the boat; and indeed they do move away from each other with this speed. Moreover what happens to the colliding
580
balls in the moving boat also clearly happens in the same way everywhere outside the boat. This having been proven, the rest follows easily. Four different cases remain: either the small body is at rest, or both bodies move in oppo[Figr.6.] site directions, or the small body pursues the large one with a faster motion, or vice versa. All of these A B~~ cases can be treated together. Let there be, as before, a body A which is larger than B [Fig. 6], and let A move with the speed AC. B is either completely at rest or has the speed BC. Thus, when these bodies are so moved, they have the relative speed AB, and I say that after the collision they move separately with the same speed. For if we imagine again that these motions occur in a boat moving with the speed CA, that is, the same speed by which A moves but in the opposite direction, then it is evident that in relation to the bank A remains motionless and B in every case collides with A with the speed BA. But A is larger than B. Thus we have the preceding case from which it is clear that after the collision the bodies must move away from each other with the [Fig. 7.] same speed AB in relation to CD ]/ X both the bank and the boat. And it is evident that the B D A bodies do recede from each other with this speed. Proposition 5: If two bodies collide a sec2 C e .I ond time with the same speed I D with which \.. they rebounded from a prior collision, then after the second collision each acquires the same speed which it had before the first collision.
/_%I
tA_
_D
581
Let us suppose that the body A is moved with the speed AC [Fig. 7] and B with the speed BC so that they collide. After the collision A departs with the speed CD, and B with the speed CE. Afterward each of the bodies turns back toward another collision with the same speed, that is, A with the speed DC, and B with the speed EC. From this I say that A will rebound with the speed CA, and B with the speed CB, which are the speeds by which they originally moved toward the first collision. While the bodies are progressing toward the second collision, A with the speed DC and B with the speed EC, let us imagine that these motions occur in a boat moving with the speed AD. Then in relation to the bank A is now moving with the speed AC because it moves with the speed DC in the boat which itself has the speed AD. And in relation to the bank B moves with the speed BC. For since DE is equal to AB [Proposition 4], then by subtracting the common segment DB, BE will equal AD. Therefore the boat moves with the speed BE. But B has the speed EC in the boat. Hence in relation to the bank B will be moved with the speed BC, as we said. Therefore it is necessary that in relation to the bank the bodies rebound from the first collision with A having the speed CD and B having the speed CE. For it was granted above that if A approaches the first collision with the speed AC and B with the speed BC, then after the collision A rebounds with the speed CD and B with the speed CE. Therefore, while in relation to the bank A moves with the speed CD and the boat moves with the speed AD, it follows that A moves in the boat with the speed CA. Further since in relation to the bank B moves with the speed CE and the boat with the speed AD or BE, it follows that the speed of B in the boat is CB. Therefore it has been shown that the bodies which move toward the second collision in the boat with the speeds DC and EC rebound in the boat with the speeds CA and CB. And this same thing must also happen everywhere else. Thus the proposition has been proven. Proposition 6: When two bodies collide with each other, the quantity of motion8 found in both of them taken together before collision is not always conserved after the collision, but may be either increased or decreased. The quantity of motion is estimated as follows: for unequal bodies having equal speeds, the larger each body is the larger is its quantity of motion; for equal bodies having unequal speeds, the quantity of motion is estimated in terms of how much faster the one body moves than the other.9
IQuantitas motus was a technical phrase whose meaning evolved through several stages in the seventeenth century. Its meaning finally became fixed in Definition II of Newton's Principia: "Quantitas motus est mensura ejusdem orta ex velocitate et quantitate materiae conjunctim," which is the now familiar notion of momentum as mass times velocity. However, in Descartes, quantitas motus (which God conserves in the universe as a whole) means spatial volume times scalar speed (Principia philosophiae, II, 36), since Descartes did not have a working notion either of mass or of velocity as a vector quantity (see Blackwell, "Descartes' Laws of Motion"). The meaning of quantitas motus for Huygens lies between the Cartesian and Newtonian definitions. Huygens has a clear notion of velocity as a vector quantity (although he uses the term celeritas much more often than velocitas in the De motu). However, he is thinking of the weight rather than either the volume or the mass of a body when he talks about the magnitude of a body, one body being equal, larger, or smaller in relation to another, etc. Thus for Huygens quantitas motus is best defined in the De motu in terms of weight and velocity, which is not quite the same as momentum. 9The meaning of this paragraph is not clear. It could be interpreted to mean that the quantity of motion is measured either in terms of the weight of each body or the difference of their velocities (and apparently also the combination of the two for the third and more common case not mentioned here; namely, unequal bodies having unequal velocities.) Or it could be measured in terms of the weight of each body and its actual velocity in relation to a common frame of reference. Further, how are the two components of weight and velocity combined in the measurement of the quantity of motion? Huygens does not explicitly say here that they form a product, i.e., weight times velocity, in this calculation. However, in a 1652 draft he gives an earlier version of Proposition 6 in which it is clear that magnitude and velocity are taken as a product: "Ex his demonstrari potest non semper post duroum corporum collisionem, tantundem motus remanere
582
FRANK SPENCER
Let the body A be larger than B, while A is at rest and B moves [Fig. 8.] to a collision with A with the speed BA [Fig. 8]. A will be moved [Proposition 3] and will acquire some speed, say AC. B will rebound with the speed AD such that the whole speed CD which the bodies have in relation to each other is equal to AB [Proposition 4]. If the body A were equal to B, the same quantity of motion would exist after the collision as before. For it clearly makes no difference whether two bodies equal to B are moved, the one with the speed AD and the other with the speed AC, or that only B is moved with the speed CD or BA. But the body A is larger than B. Therefore it is apparent that there is a greater quantity of motion after the collision when the body A moves with the speed AC and the body B with the speed AD, than before when only B had a speed of BA. Further, the fact that the quantity of motion can be decreased is shown as follows. If B with the speed BA collides with the body A which is at rest, then A acquires the speed AC and B retains the speed AD. On the other hand if A advances with the speed CA and B with the speed DA in the opposite direction, then after the collision A remains motionless and B rebounds with the speed AB [Proposition 5]. Therefore, from what was shown earlier, there will be a smaller quantity of motion after the collision than there was before. Proposition 7: When a larger body collides with a smaller body at rest, it gives less than twice its speed to it. Let the body A with the speed AB collide with a smaller body B at rest [Fig. 9]. I say that B will acquire a speed less [Fig. 9.] than the double of AB. For after the collision the two bodies must depart from each other with the same speed AB [Proposition 4]. Now if the speed of the body B were to become twice the speed AB, it would be necessary that after the collision A would pursue B with this same speed AB, which is impossible [Hypothesis IV]. Further, if the speed of B were more than twice AB, it would be necessary-that after the collision A would
quantum erat antea, eo videlicet sensu, ut corporum magnitudines cum velocitatibus multiplicatae, eundum numerum producant quem prius producebant" (Oeuvres, Vol. XVI, p. 95). His thinking here seems to be that since the weights are constant, the key question is how much velocity is found in each body after a collision and how does this compare to how much velocity was present in each body before the collision. This comparison does not always give an equality according to Proposition 6, which is thus not the same as the principle of the conservation of momentum. The latter is much more clearly anticipated by Huygens in his "admirable law of nature" announced in his letter of Mar. 18, 1669, to the Journal de Sfavans (Oeuvres, Vol. XVI, p. 181): Au reste j'ay remarque une loy admirable de la Nature, laquelle je puis demonstrer en ce qui est des corps Spheriques, et qui semble estre generale en tous les autres tant durs que mols, soit que le rencontre soit directe ou oblique: C'est que le centre commun de gravit6 de deux ou de trois ou de tant qu'on voudra de corps, avance touijoursegalement vers le meme coste en ligne droite devant et apres leur rencontre. The above-mentioned demonstration of this law is not to be found anywhere in the writings of Huygens. Also in this same letter (Rule 5) Huygens gives a corrected version of Proposition 6 which reads: "La quantite du mouvement qu'ont deux corps, se peut augmenter ou diminuer par leur rencontre, mais il y reste touijours la mesme quantit6 vers le mesme coste, en soustrayant la quantite du mouvement contraire." Since this modified rule was already known to Huygens by the mid-1650s (see Oeuvres, Vol. XVI, pp. 146147), it is both surprising and disappointing that he did not use it in the De motu.
583
continue to move with a speed greater than AB, which is also absurd. Therefore the proposition is proven. In regard to equal bodies it has been shown in all cases how one of them gives motion to the other, on the supposition that when equal bodies collide with equal speeds, then they also rebound equally. Likewise in regard to bodies of different magnitudes all cases can be determined, and there are many such cases, by granting what follows. For if two unequal bodies collide with each other, and if their speeds are inversely proportional to their magnitudes, then they will each rebound from the collision with the same speed which they had before. For example, let A be three times larger than B, but the speed BC by [Fig. I o.] which B moves is triple the speed AC by which A moves [Fig. 10]. Having collided at C, each body rebounds with the same speed which it had before. However, since this is not as evident as what was granted for equal bodies (even though it is not contrary to reason and conforms quite well with experiments), we will try to prove it with a demonstration. It is quite well known that when two bodies fall downward with naturally accelerated motion, the ratio of the distances they have traversed is equal to the square of the ratio of the maximum grades of speed which they have acquired. This was Rdemonstrated by Galileo in his third dialogue on motion'0 and is also observed in innumerable and very exquisite experiments. What is also well known is that the speed acquired by a falling body can restore it to the same height from which it fell. Demonstrations of both of these points are developed in our treatise on clocks." From this then the above-mentioned theorem can be demonstrated. Proposition 8: If two bodies whose speeds are inversely proportional to their magnitudesl2 collide with each other, then each rebounds with the same speed which it had before the collision. Let the bodies A and B collide with each other [Fig. 11]. A is larger than B.
'?In the passage to which Huygens refers, Galileo proves the theorem "The ratio of the spaces traversed is the same as the squared ratio of the time-intervals." He then immediately adds, "Evidently then the ratio of the distances is the square of the ratio of the final velocities" (Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, trans. H. Crew and A. de Salvio, New York: Dover, n.d., p. 175; Edizione Nazionale, Vol. VII, p. 210). "Propositions 3 and 4, Part II, of Horologium oscillatorium (1673) in Oeuvres, Vol. XVIII, pp. 131-137. '2The Latin term magnitudo (as used in Proposition 8 and frequently hereafter) we will consistently translate as "magnitude." This is the same term used by Descartes in his seven rules of impact (Principia philosophiae, II, 46-52), where it means spatial volume, a natural consequence of Descartes's identification of matter with extension. However, this is not Huygens' meaning. Rather he uses the term to refer to the amount of weight in a body, as he asserts in his letter of Mar. 18, 1669, to the Journal de Scavans. Referring specifically to his laws of collision, he says, "le considere en tout cecy des corps d'une mesme matiere, ou bien j'entends que leur grandeur soit estimee par le poids" (Oeuvres, Vol. XVI, p. 180). H. Crew has claimed (The Rise of Modern Physics, Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1928, p. 121) that the first clear distinction between mass and weight appears in Huygens' De vi centrifuga (completed in 1659; conclusions published in 1673; full text not published until 1703). The relevant passage reads: "Unde etiam concludemus vires centrifugas mobilium inaequalium sed in circulis aequalibus aequali velocitate latorum esse inter se sicut mobilium gravitates, seu quantitates solidas" (Oeuvres, Vol. XVI, p. 267). These "solid quantities" are certainly what we would now call "masses" expressed in the relation of F1:F2::mI:m2. However this notion may have been distinguished from that of weight in Huygens' mind at that time, what we have here is at least a major step toward a distinct notion of mass. But there is no textual evidence that this distinction is operative in the De motu, despite our being habituated after Newton to regard what Huygens calls "magnitude" as "mass" rather than "weight."
584
Further, the ratio of the magnitude of A to the magnitude of B is the same as the ratio of the speed BC of the body B to the speed AC of the body A. What must be proven is that after the collision each body rebounds with the same speed which it had before, that is, A with the [Fig. I I.] speed CA and B with the speed CB. Now it is clear that if A rebounds with the speed CA, then B is ar reflected with the speed CB. Otherwise the mutual speed of rebounding would PX~~~ not be the same as the mutual speed of the bodies approaching the collision 4]. [Proposition Therefore if body A did not rebound with the speed CA, then in the first case let it rebound with a smaller speed CD, if that were possible, And thus B would ID cr rebound with the speed CE which is larger than the speed it had before in such a way that DE is equal to AB [Proposition 4]. Let us assume that the body A had acquired its initial speed AC by which it approaches the collision by falling from a height of HA such that after falling as far as A it changed its perpendicular motion into a horizontal motion of the speed AC. Likewise let us assume that the body B acquired its speed BC by falling from the height KB. Therefore these heights are proportional to the squares of the speeds; that is, the square of AC is related to the square of CB as HA is related to KB. Next after the collision let the bodies A and B convert their horizontal motions, whose speeds are measured by CD and DE, into perpendicular motions upward. It follows that the body A will rise to the height AL such that AL is to AH as the square of CD is to the square of CA. For when this is the ratio of AL to AH, it is certain that a body falling from the height LA will acquire the speed CD. Likewise a body having the speed CD can rise to the height AL, because of what was granted above. Moreover, when the body B converts its speed CE into a perpendicular motion upward, it will rise to the height BM such that MB is to KB as the square of CE is to the square of CB. Let us next draw the lines HK and LM which necessarily intersect, let us say at the point P. Further let each of these lines be divided in the same way at N and 0 so that as the magnitude B is to the magnitude A, or as AC is to CB, so also is HN to NK and LO to OM. Thus when the center of gravity of the body A is located at H, and the body B's center of gravity at K, their composite center of gravity is at the point N. Now after
585
they fall from H and K, and after they collide and rise again up to the points L and M, the composite center of gravity will be at 0. But this cannot occur. For, as we will soon show, the point 0 is higher than N, and it is a most certain axiom in mechanics that, when bodies move because of their gravity, their common center of gravity cannot rise. I That the point 0 is higher than N is shown as follows. The excess of the square of EC over the square of BC is equal [Euclid, Book II, Proposition 414] to two rectangles CBE plus the square of BE, that is, is equal to the rectangle which is constructed with the sum of EC and CB for one side and with BE as the other side. Likewise the excess of the square of AC over the square of CD is equal to a rectangle which is constructed with the sum of AC and CD for one side and with AD as the other side.'5 But AD is equal to BE since AB is equal to DE. It follows then that the ratio of the excess of the squares of EC and CB to the excess of the squares of AC and CD is the same as the ratio of the sum of the lines EC and CB to the sum of the lines AC and CD. But the sum of the two lines EC and CB is more than double the line CB, and the sum of the two lines AC and CD is less than double the line AC. Therefore the ratio of the sum of EC and CB to the sum of AC and CD will be greater than the ratio of CB to CA. And therefore the ratio of the excess of the square of EC over the square of CB to the excess of the square of AC over the square of CD is greater than the ratio of BC to CA. Since the ratio of the square of EC to the square of CB is the same as the ratio of the length MB to the length BK, then by division it follows that the ratio of the excess of the square of EC over the square of CB to the
'3This axiom is actually Huygens' translation into a context of dynamics of the principle from statics to the effect that the center of gravity is always located in the lowest possible point. For the history of this latter principle, see Pierre Duhem, Origines de la statique (Paris: Hermann, 1906), Vol. II, Ch. 15. As such, what we have here is the creative modification of a previous mechanical principle to deal with new problems (see Oeuvres, Vol. XVI, pp. 21-24). In the demonstrations of the various cases under Proposition 8 which follow, this axiom is central and is used quite skillfully. However, the proofs are rather complex and cumbersome because Huygens elects to formulate them in geometrical terms. For the simpler algebraic forms of these as well as the other proofs in the De motu, see the editor's notes in Oeuvres, Vol. XVI, pp. 29-91.
'4Proposition 4, Book II, of Euclid's Elements reads as follows: "If a straight line be cut at random, tfie square on the whole is equal to the squares on.the segments and twice the rectangle contained by the segments" (The Thirteen Books of Euclid's Elements, trans. T. L. Heath, 2nd ed., New York: Dover, 1956, Vol. I, p. 379). By way of illustration, let the line AB be cut at any point C, as shown in the figure. Put algebraically, (AB)2 = (CB)2 + (AC)2 + 2(CB X AC)
-A
'5Huygens' point in this and in the previous sentence can be illustrated as shown. Put algebraically, E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (EC)2 - (BC)2 = [(EC + CB) >XBE] (AC)2 - (CD)2 = [(AC + CD) X AD]
586
square of CB will be the same as the ratio of MK to KB. Also the ratio of the square of CB to the square of CA is the same as the ratio of the line KB to the line HA. And the square of CA has the same ratio to its excess over the square of CD as HA has to HL, for the square of AC is related to the square of CD as HA is related to AL. Thus by equality it follows that the ratio of the excess of the square of EC over the square of CB to the excess of the square of AC over the square of CD is the same as the ratio of MK to HL. For this reason the ratio of MK to HL will also be larger than the ratio of BC to CA. But MK is to HL as MP is to PL, and also BC is to CA as MO is to OL. Therefore the ratio of MP to PL is greater than the ratio of MO to OL. And by addition the ratio of ML to LP is greater than the ratio of ML to LO. Thus LO is greater than LP. Hence it is necessary that the point 0 fall on that side of the intersection P which is toward M. But the line which joins the points 0 and N is parallel to the perpendiculars MB and HA, because these points divide the straight lines LM and HK by the same ratio. Thus as M is higher than K, so also is it clear that 0 is higher than N. Q.E.D. Next let us [Fig. In.] assume that it would be possible for the body A to rebound from the collision with a speed CD which is larger than the speed CA by which it approached the collision [Fig. 12]. But CD will be less than CB, which was -S /C the speed of the body B before the collision. For if B were not less than A but equal to it, then indeed A would rebound from the collision with the speed CB [Proposition 2], but B would rebound with the speed CE so that DE would be equal to AB [Proposition 4]. Now let all the other things done above be granted, and let the construction be completed as in the previous case. It follows then that L is higher than H because DC is greater than AC; also that M is lower than K because EC is smaller than CB. Next we will show as before that the ratio of the difference of the squares of DC and CA to the difference of the squares of BC and CE is the same ratio as the sum of AC and CD to the sum of EC and CB. Since this last sum is less than twice CB, and since the former sum is greater than twice AC, the ratio of the sum of AC and CD to the sum of EC and CB will be greater than the ratio of AC to CB. Therefore, the ratio of the difference of the squares of DC and CA to,the difference of the squares of BC and CE
587
will be greater than the ratio of AC to CB. But what was demonstrated about the ratio of the one difference to the other is also demonstrated of the ratio of LH to KM. Thus also the ratio of LH to KM, that is, of LP to PM, is greater than the ratio of AC to CB, that is, of LO to OM. Accordingly the point 0 falls on the side of the intersection P which is toward L. But as before ON is parallel to LH. Therefore as the point L is higher than H, also 0 will be higher than N. But this is absurd for the same reason which we gave in the previous case. Next let us assume that after the collision the body A [Fig. 13] remains motionless and only B is rebounded. Then B will rebound with the speed AB [Proposition 4] since the two bodies had [Fig13.] the speed AB in respect to each other before the collision. Now let us assume as before that the body B acquires its speed BC by falling from the height KB. Consequently if the square of CB is related to the square of AB as the length BK is related to BM, then the body B could rise to the height BM if it converted its horizontal motion having the speed AB into a perpendicular motion upward. However, the body A will remain on the line AB, because af0 ter the collision it has no motion at all. Thus, if a line is drawn from M to A and is divided 0 such that AO is at A$ to OM as AC is to CB, then the point 0 will mark the height I z~~~~~A to which the center of gravity composed of both bodies will rise. Now if we suppose that the bodies had been located at H and K from which they are presumed to have fallen, then their common center of gravity would have been at the point N, which in a like manner divides the straight line HK by the ratio of AC to CB. Thus if we show again in this case that the point 0 is higher than the point N, the demonstration will be reduced to the same absurdity as above. Now this is shown as follows. The square of AB is to the square of BC as the length MB is
588
to BK. Then by division the ratio of the excess of the square of AB over the square of BC to the square of BC is the same as the ratio of MK to KB. But the square of BC is to the square of CA as KB is to HA, for this is assumed as in the first case. Therefore, by equality the ratio of the excess of the square of AB over the square of BC to the square of CA will be the same as the ratio of MK to HA. But the ratio of this excess to the square of CA is clearly greater than the ratio of the straight line BC-to CA. Thus the ratio of MK to HA, that is, of MP to PA, is greater than the ratio of BC to CA, that is, greater than the ratio of MO to OA. By addition it follows that the ratio of MA to AP is greater than the ratio of MA to AO. Hence the point 0 must fall on the side of the intersection P which is toward M. But M is higher than K. Therefore since ON is necessarily parallel to MK, the point 0 will also be higher than N. This was what required proof. Finally let the body A after the [Fig. 14.] collision continue to move in the c e same direction a If with the speed CF [Fig. 14]. CF will not be greater than AC, which was A's speed before the collision. But the body B ought to run on ahead of A with the speed CG whose excess FG over the speed CF is equal to AB [Proposition 4]. It will be shown as follows that this is not possible. Let CD equal CF, and thus DE equals AB. Therefore CE is smaller than ED by the same quantity that CG is larger than ED or FG. However, if we assume as in the first case that the body A rebounded from the collision with the speed CD, then it is clearly proven that the body B cannot have the speed CE without falling into absurdity. For after converting their horizontal motions into perpendicular motions, the composite gravity of the bodies will rise higher than the place from which they descended. This is even much more necessary if the body B acquires a speed CG which is much greater than CE, while A has a speed CF which is equal to CD. Therefore the body A does not continue to move in the same direction after the collision. It follows then that A rebounds after the collision with the same speed which it had before. And thus also B rebounds with the speed CB. Q.E.D. Proposition 9: Given two unequal bodies which directly collide, and given that either both or only one of them is in motion, and given the speed of each or of only one if the other is at rest, find the speed by which each is moved after the collision. Let the body A move toward the right with the speed CD [Fig. 15]. And let B either move in the opposite direction, or let it precede A in the same direction with the speed BD, or finally let B be at rest, that is, let the point D fall in B. Therefore AB will be the mutual speed of A and B. Next let AB be divided at C such that AC is to CB as the magnitude of B is to the magnitude of A. And let CD equal CE. I say that EA will be the speed of the body A after the collision, and EB the speed of the body B. The direction of the speeds is shown by the order of the points EA and EB. When the point E coincides with A, then the body A is brought to rest, and when E coincides with B, then the body B is at rest. When we have shown that this is what happens in a boat moving with equal speed, it follows that this will also happen in the same way for an observer standing on the
589
ground. Let us imagine then a boat moving parallel to the bank of a river. A sailor stands in the boat and holds in his hands F and G the balls A and B suspended from strings. By moving [Fig. i5.] balls with the the E; Cf -D A AD and BD speeds i I ~~~I in respect to himself and the boat, he makes them collide at the point D. Moreover, it was assumed that the boat continues to move with the speed DC in <Rs~~~~ the direction indii a cated by the order of _VC the points DC. It follows then that in relation to the bank and to an observer standing there, the ball A moves toward the right with the speed AC because it has the speed AD in relation to the boat. And the ball B which has the speed BD in the boat will have the speed BC toward the left in relation to the bank. Now let the observer standing on the bank extend his hands H and K and take hold of the sailor's hands F and G along with the tops of the strings from which the bodies A and B are suspended. It is clear then that while the sailor moves the balls with the speeds AD and BD in relation to himself, the observer on the bank simultaneously moves them with the speeds AC and BC in relation to himself and to the bank. Since these latter speeds are inversely proportional to the magnitudes of A and B, it is necessary that the bodies A and B rebound from contact with the speeds CA and CB in relation to the observer, as was demonstrated previously. However, the boat always moves with the speed DC or CE in accordance with the order of the points CE. Thus it is necessary that A moves with the speed EA in relation to the boat and the sailor in the direction designated by the order of the points EA. And B moves in relation to the boat with the speed EB and also in accordance with the order of the points EB. When E coincides with either A or B, it is clear that after the collision the body A or B moves with the same speed as the boat and in the same direction. Hence in these cases it is necessary that either body be at rest in relation to the boat and the sailor. Thus we have shown that the bodies A and B, which move toward collision in the boat with the speeds AD and BD, are moved in the same boat after collision with the speeds EA and EB and in accordance with the order of these points. Now what happens in the boat also clearly happens in the same way for someone standing on
--
590
the ground, as we have said. Therefore the proposition is proven. From the construction of this problem one can formulate the following rules for the purposes of calculation. Given two bodies A and B, both of which are moved, to find the speed of the body A after the collision, let the relative speed of A and B be related to another speed, called C, as the sum of the bodies is related to twice the body B. The difference between C and the speed of A before the collision (or in one case their sum when A precedes in motion) will give the speed by which A will be moved after the collision. A rebounds when C is greater than A's initial speed, and it continues forward when C is smaller. If there is no difference, the body A remains at rest after the collision. When the speed of the body A has been found, the speed of the body B is also known because the relative speed of the bodies must be the same before and after the collision. Given that the body A is at rest and only B moves toward it, it is clear that the speed of A after the collision will be equal to the speed C, found as we have already said. From this the following theorem is deduced. Proposition 10: The ratio of the speed which a large body gives to a small body at rest to the speed which a small body of the same speed gives to a large body at rest is the same as the ratio of the magnitude of the large body to the magnitude of the small body. Let the body A be larger than B. Let us assume that the speed AC is given to A at rest when it is struck by the body B moving with the speed BA [Fig. 16]. Also assume that the speed BD is given to the body B at rest when it is struck by the body A having the same speed AB. I say that the speed BD is related to the speed AC as the magnitude of A is related to the magnitude of B. For the speed BD [Fig. i6;] is related to twice the speed AB as the body X C B C-{ A is related to both B and A taken together [Proposition 9]. Also both B and A taken together are related to B as twice the speed AB is related to the speed AC [Proposition 9]. By equality it follows that the speed BD will be related to the speed AC as the body A is related to B. Q.E.D. Proposition 11: If two bodies collide with each other, and if the ratio of both their magnitudes and their speeds is given either in numbers or in lines, then the sum of their magnitudes multiplied by the squares of their respective velocities is equal before and after the collision.16 Let us suppose two bodies A and B. A moves before the collision with the speed AD, and B with the speed BD [Fig. 17]. After the collision we find as before that A has the speed EA, and B the speed EB. Let AB be divided at C so that A is to B as BC is to CA, and let CE equal CD. Therefore the ratio of magnitude A to B is designated by the ratio of the line CB to CA. What must be proven is that the solid figure
'6It is quite remarkable that Huygens was able to formulate the principle of the conservation of kinetic energy in perfectly elastic collisions as early as 1652. At that time he merely stated the principle as an axiom and gave no indication of hoW he arrived at the notion. His axiom was, "Sed necesse est quadrata velocitatum ducta in magnitudinem corporum semper eundem numerum producere" (Oeuvres, Vol. XVI,
p. 95).
591
composed of the line CB multiplied by the square of AD plus the solid of CA times the square of BD is equal to the solid of CB times the square of EA plus the solid of CA times the square of EB. Now if there are four magnitudes of which the first exceeds the second tFig. 17.] as much as the third exceeds the fourth, or of which the first is smaller than the second by as much as the third is smaller than the fourth, then it is c rvX~. x~ certain that the first i_~~ ir plus the fourth equals the second plus the third. Thus the proposition will be proven if we show that the solid figure of CB times the square of AD is either larger or smaller than the solid of CB times the square of EA by the same amount that the solid of CA times the square of EB is either larger or smaller than the solid of CA times the square of BD. This is shown as follows. In every case either the point C falls between A and D or the point D falls between A and C. Whenever C is located between A and D, AD will equal the sum of AC and CD, and AE will equal the difference between AC and CD. For CE is equal to CD, and thus AD will always be larger than AE. In these same cases BE will equal the sum of BC and CE, and BD will equal the difference between BC and CE. And thus BE will always be larger than BD. Further, whenever D falls between A and C, AE will equal the sum of AC and CE, and AD will equal the difference between AC and CE. And thus AE is larger than AD. But in these same cases BD will be larger than BE, since BD is equal to the sum of BC and BD while BE is equal to the difference between BC and BD. Thus it is clear that whenever AD is larger than AE, then BE is also larger than BD, and whenever AE is larger than AD, then BD is also larger than BE. Next, since DE is divided in half at C, then wherever the point A is located, the difference of the squares of AD and AE will always be equal to four times the rectangle ACD or ACE, according to Euclid's Elements, Book II, Proposition 8.17 In
17Proposition 8, Book I1,of Euclid's Elements reads as follows: "If a straight line be cut at random, four times the rectangle contained by the whole and one of the segments together with the square of the
592
the first and fifth cases, for the line cut in any way whatsoever, take the line AC which is divided at E; in the second and eighth cases, take AC which is divided at D; in the third and fourth cases, take EC which is divided at A. In the sixth and seventh cases, where there is no square of AE, it is clear that the above-mentioned difference is the square of AD which likewise is necessarily equal to four times the rectangle ACD or ACE. For the same reason, since the line DE is bisected at C, then wherever the point B is located, the difference of the squares of BE and BD will always be equal to four times the rectangle BCD or BCE. However since the rectangles have a common height, four times the rectangle BCD is to four times the rectangle ACD, which was equal to the difference of the squares of AD and AE, as BC is to AC. Therefore the difference of the squares of BE and BD is to the difference of the squares of AD and AE as BC is to AC. Consequently the product of the straight line BC times the difference of the squares of AD and AE, which is the same as the difference of the solid figures composed of BC times the square of AD and of BC times the square of AE, is equal to the product of the straight line AC times the difference of the squares of BE and BC, that is, is equal to the difference of the solid figures composed of'AC times the square of BE and of AC times the square of BD. But when the square of AD is larger or smaller than the square of AE, then the square of BE will always be respectively larger or smaller than the square of'BD. Therefore it is clear that the solid composed of BC times the square of AD always is larger or smaller than the solid composed of BC times the square of AE by the same amount that the solid composed of AC times the square of BE is respectively larger or smaller than the solid composed of AC times the square of BD. Q.E.D. Lemma 1: Let the straight line AB be cut at C and D such that the segment AC is smaller than CD, and CD is smaller than BD [Fig. 18]. I say that the rectangle composed of AD and CB is less than twice the sum of the rectangles ACD and CDB. Let the square CGND be constructed on the segment CD. Extend CG up to E so that GE is equal to CA. Construct the rectangle ECBF, and extend DN to K and GN to H. Thus since CG is equal to CD and GE is equal to AC, the entire line CE will be equal to AD. Hence the rectangle CF is the rectangle composed of AD and CB. But the rectangle EN is equal to the rectangle ACD, and the rectangle NB is equal to the rectangle CDB. Therefore what must be shown is that the rectangle CF is less than twice the sum of the rectangles EN and NB. Let GL be equal to GE, and draw the line LM parallel to AB. Since GL is smaller than GC (for GE or AC is smaller than CD), LM falls between GH and CB. Now since CD is less than DB, the rectangle LD will be less than the rectangle DM. But LN is equal to the rectangle NE, and the rectangle NM is equal to the rectangle
--I
remaining segment is equal to the square described on the whole and the aforesaid segment as on one straight line" (Elements, trans. Heath, Vol. I, p. 389). By way of illustration, let the line AB be cut at any point C, and let BD = AC, as shown in the figure. Put algebraically, 4(AB X AC) + (CB)2 = (AB + AC)2
"7
c B D
593
NF. Therefore the sum of the rec46 LN tangles and NF is equal to the sum of NE and NM. Thus if unare equals to added equals, that is, the rectangle LD to the rectangles LN and NF, . .0 C .XC and the rectangle MD to the rectangles NE and NM, then the sum of the square CN and the rectangle NF is less than the sum of the rectangles NB and NE. Hence the sum of all of these figures, that is, the rectangle CF, must be less than twice the sum of the rectangles NB and NE. Q.E.D. Lemma 2: Let AB, AC, and AD be three proportional straight lines of which AB is the largest, and let the same length AE be added to all three lines [Fig. 19]. I say that the rectangle composed of BE [Fig. '9.] and DE is larger than the A a D _ square of CE. For since AB. AC. and AD are proportional, the excess BC is related to the excess CD as BA is related to AC, or as CA is related to AD. But the ratio of CA to AD is larger than the ratio of CE to ED. Thus the ratio of BC to CD is also larger than the ratio of CE to ED. By permutation the ratio of BC to CE is larger than the ratio of CD to DE, and by addition the ratio of BE to EC is larger than the ratio of CE to ED. Therefore the rectangle composed of BE and ED is larger than the square of CE, as was proposed. Proposition 12: If a body moves toward another larger or smaller body at rest, then it will give it a greater speed if there is another body of intermediate magnitude and at rest interposed between them than if they collide without any intermediary. And it will confer the maximum speed when the interposed body is a middle proportional between the extremes. Let the body A move toward C which is at rest [Fig. 20]. And let A be larger or smaller than C, and let the motionless body B of intermediate magnitude be placed in between A and C. Thus when A first strikes B, and then B strikes C, I say that a greater motion is acquired by C than if A had collided directly with C. Let the straight lines DE, ELI, and HK have the same ratio to each other as the bodies A, B, and C. Let the speed of the body A be LP whose double is LQ. If we let LQ be related to MR as the sum of DE and ELIis related to DE, then MR will be the speed acquired by the motionless body B when it is struck by A [Proposition 9]. Let MS be the double of MR. Thus again if we let MS be related to N as the sum of EH and H K is related to ELI, then N will be the speed of the body C after it is struck by B having the speed MR [Proposition 9]. But if LQ is related to 0 as the sum of DE and [Fig. i8.]
x __
594
RICHARD J. BLACKWELL [Fig. 20.]
HK is related to DE, then 0 will be the speed acquired by the body C if it is struck by the body A having the speed LP. What must be proven is that the speed N is larger than
0.
The ratio of LQ to N is composed of the ratios of LQ to MR and of MR to N. But the I b4 ! is ratio of LQ to MR is the same as the ratio of 0 __ a --au- *, I I 4 HD to DE. And the ratio of MR to N is the same as the ratio of KE to twice EH. For as KE is to EH, so also is SM to N. Thus KE is to twice EH as SM is to twice N, that is, as RM is to N. Therefore the ratio of LQ to N is composed of the ratios of HD to DE and of KE to twice EH, and thus will be the same as the ratio of the rectangle composed of HD and KE to twice the rectangle DEH. But the ratio of LQ to 0 is the same as the ratio of the sum of DE and HK to DE by construction, that is, by taking EH as the common height, it is the same as the ratio of the sum of the rectangles DEH and EHK to the rectangle DEH, or the same as twice that sum to twice the rectangle DEH. But the rectangle composed of HD and KE is less than twice the rectangles DEH and EHK [Lemma 1]. Therefore the ratio of the rectangle composed of HD and KE to twice the rectangle DEH will be less than the ratio of the rectangles DEH and EHK, taken twice, to twice this same rectangle DEH. But we have said that the ratio of the rectangle composed of HD and KE to twice the rectangle DEH is the same as the ratio of LQ to N. And we have also said that the ratio of twice the sum of the rectangles DEH and EHK to twice the rectangle DEH is the same as the ratio of LQ to 0. Therefore the ratio of LQ to N will be less than the ratio of LQ to 0, and thus N is larger than 0. Now let B be a middle proportional between A and C. I say that with this ratio the greatest speed of all will be given to the body C. For in place of B let the larger body X be interposed from the start such that A strikes X and X strikes C [Fig. 21]. Then let it be granted, if that were possible, that the speed acquired by the body C is greater than if B were interposed. Thus A is to X as DE to ET. Therefore ET is larger than EH, assuming as before that DE, EH, and HK are proportional in the same ratio as the bodies A, B, and C. But VE is the third proportional to the two lines TE and HE, and the speed N acquired by the body C through the interposed body B is found as before. The speed which is acquired by C through the interposed body X is found in the same way [Proposition 9]. Now if the ratio of the sum of A and X to X, that is, of the sum of DE and ET to DE, is the same as the ratio of LQ to IY, then IY will be the speed acquired by the body X when struck by A. Further, if the ratio of the sum of X and C to X, that is, of the sum of ET and HK to ET, is the same as the ratio of twice IY, that is, ZY, to G, then G will be the speed acquired by the body C. From this it has been shown that N is larger than G. As was shown before, the ratio of LQ to N is composed of the ratios of HD to DE and of KE to twice HE. But as KE is to twice HE, so is HD to twice ED since KH,
1-
595
[Fig. 2I.]
41
~~~Z
I Ia~
Yi .4
a f
HE, and ED are proportional. Therefore the ratio of LQ to N is now composed of the ratios of HD to DE and of HD to twice DE, and because of this it will be the same as the ratio of the square of HD to twice the square of DE. But the ratio of LQ to G is composed of the ratios of LQ to IY and of IY to G, of which the ratio of LQ to IY is the same as the ratio of TD to DE by construction, and the ratio of IY to G is the same as the ratio of the sum of KH and TE to twice TE. For by construction, the sum of KH and TE is related to TE as ZY is related to G. Therefore, by doubling the second terms the sum of KH and TE is related to twice TE as ZY is related to twice G, or as IY is related to G, as was said. Therefore the ratio of LQ to G is composed of the ratios of TD to DE and of the sum of KH and TE to twice TE. But since DE, EH, and HK are proportional, the rectangle composed of DE and HK will be equal to the square of EH. However, the rectangle composed of EV and ET is also equal to the square of EH, since EV, EH, and ET are proportional. Therefore the rectangle composed of DE and HK is equal to the rectangle composed of EV and ET. Hence, as VE is to ED, HK is to ET. And by addition VD is to DE as the sum of KH and TE is to TE. By doubling the [Fig. 22.] second terms, VD is to twice DE as the sum of KH and TE is to twice TE. Thus the ratio of LQ to G is composed of the ratios of TD to DE and of VD to twice DE, and thus is the same as the ratio of the rectangle TDV to twice the square of DE. But the ratio of LQ to N has been shown to ~ iw i~~i be the same as the ratio of the square of HD to twice the square of DE. Thus since the rectangle TDV is larger than I II Z,v the square of HD by Lemma 2 (for TE, HE, and VE are , proportionals to which the length ED was added), it follows that the ratio of LQ to G is larger than the ratio of LQ to N. And therefore N is larger than G. Q.E.D. Next let it be assumed that the body C acquires a greater speed when a body X
9 I
Ir
596
smaller than B is interposed [Fig. 22]. Again let A be to X as DE is to ET. Then since it is assumed that X is smaller than B, ET will also be smaller than EH, for DE is to EH as A is to B. For the rest repeat the same construction and apply again the demonstration which shows that the speed N is larger than G. Thus it is clear that the maximum speed is acquired by the motionless body C through the interposition of the body B, which is a middle proportional between A and C. Proposition 13: To the extent that many bodies are interposed between two unequal bodies, of which one is at rest and the other is in motion, to the same extent a greater motion can be given to the body at rest. The maximum motion is conferred through any one group of interposed bodies if the latter constitute a continuous proportional series with the extremes. Let A, B, and C be proportional bodies [Fig. 23]. A is in motion while the other two are at rest. The maximum motion which C can acquire through the interposition of one body is produced by the interposition of B [Proposition 12]. The fact that a still larger motion can be produced by the interposition of two bodies will be clear from the following. If the middle proportional [Fig. 23.] D is interposed between A and B, then a greater motion is acquired by the body B than if it had been struck directly by the body A. To the extent that the speed of B is greater, to the same extent a greater speed is given to C. 0 Therefore C will be moved more through the (~ / interposition of bodies D and B than through B alone. Further, if in the place of B another body is introduced which is a middle proportional between D and C, it is clear that a still greater motion will be given to C than was the case when the bodies D and B were interposed. Next it is shown as follows that the maximum motion is given to the last body through the interposition of two bodies when A, D, B, and C are continuously proportional. First it is clear that the speed of the body C through the interposition of two bodies cannot increase indefinitely. For the speed of the body D will always be less than twice the speed of A [Proposition 7]. In the same way the speed of B will always be less than twice the speed of D, and the speed acquired by the body C will always be less than twice the speed of B. Therefore in every case the speed of C will be less than eight times the speed of A. From this it is clear that there is a definite limit speed which the body C cannot surpass through the interposition of two bodies. Let this speed be E, and let us assume that the body C has acquired this speed when the bodies D and B are interposed between it and A. Now I say that A, D, B, and C are continuously proportional. For in the first place, if the three bodies A, D, and B are not proportional, then by substituting for D another body which is the middle proportional between A and B, it will happen that a larger motion is given to B than through the interposition of D, and also C will acquire a greater speed than through the interposition of D and B, that is, a speed greater than E. But this is absurd since it was assumed that E is the maximum speed which the body C can acquire through the interposition of two bodies. Likewise, if D, B, and C are not proportional, then it will be possible to introduce in the place of B and between D and C another body which is a middle proportional such that it will happen again that C acquires a greater speed than through the interposition of D and B, that is, a speed greater than E, which is absurd for the same reason. Thus since both A, D, B and D, B, C are proportional, all
597
the bodies A, D, B, C are in continuous proportion, which was the point to be proven. From this and with the same argument it can be shown that when three bodies are interposed between A and C, then C can acquire a still greater motion than when only two bodies were interposed, and so forth. Also with the same argument it is shown that C acquires the maximum motion when there is a continuous proportion of all the bodies. Q.E.D. Let there be a row of one hundred bodies in a proportion ot two to one, and let the motion begin from the largest body. Then, by a calculation, omitted here, according to the rule given in Proposition 9 but in an abridged form, one finds that the ratio of the speed of the smallest body to the speed by which the largest body was moved is approximately 14,760,000,000 to 1. If the motion begins from the smallest body, the quantity of motion increases in general approximately according to the ratio of 1 to 4,677,000,000,000.18
'8This last paragraph was added to the treatise at a later date, probably in about 1667. For Huygens' calculations of these values, see Oeuvres, Vol. XVI, pp. 156-158. The rule referred to is contained in the last three paragraphs of Proposition 9.

Christiaan Huygens

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Christiaan Huygens

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Christiaan Huygens' The Motion of Colliding Bodies Author(s): Richard J. Blackwell and Christiaan Huygen Source: Isis, Vol.

THE MOTION OF COLLIDING BODIES

THE MOTION OF COLLIDING BODIES

THE MOTION OF COLLIDING BODIES

THE MOTION OF COLLIDING BODIES

THE MOTION OF COLLIDING BODIES

THE MOTION OF COLLIDING BODIES

THE MOTION OF COLLIDING BODIES

THE MOTION OF COLLIDING BODIES

THE MOTION OF COLLIDING BODIES

THE MOTION OF COLLIDING BODIES

RICHARD J. BLACKWELL [Fig. 20.]

THE MOTION OF COLLIDING BODIES

THE MOTION OF COLLIDING BODIES

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen