where is the angle of the half-aperture of the cone; kt is found from (5.10). In deduction of the formula correlations were used for the trajectories before and after impact, which were obtained in 5.2.1. This inequality makes it possible to evaluate the acceptable values of s for a chosen conicity. Analysis of the formula shows that it is expedient to make . In lateral impacts the coefficient of friction of the head of the rod on the cone has a large effect. Figure 5.11 shows the dependance of the equivalent mass on the coefficient of friction of the head on the cone . When differs slightly from its value when ; when increases by a factor of 2.5-3, and the momentum and energy of interaction also increases. The trajectories of the rod inside the cone change unfavorably as well, since increases. Thus, a significant increase in friction during docking is unacceptable. 5.5.2. Shock Absorption In Impacts With the Cone Let us examine the two-dimensional case of interaction through a docking mechanism which contains a flexible rod , longitudinal and transverse elastic-viscous shock absorbers (their parameters respectively are , friction at the point of interaction is considered. The equations of deformation of the rod and the shock absorbers may be obtained from (5.8) where is defined as in (5.7). If there is no preliminary compression of the springs, the initial conditions
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==