Very Simple Conceptual Question About Rolling

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the principle that the velocity of the contact point of a rolling wheel is zero relative to a stationary observer. While the wheel translates horizontally, at the exact moment of contact with the ground, the point on the wheel has zero velocity despite having non-zero acceleration. This means that while the average velocity of the wheel is not zero, the contact point does not move relative to the surface at that instant. The distinction is made between the contact point and the surface speed of the wheel, which is relevant for understanding rolling motion. Overall, the clarification emphasizes the difference between instantaneous velocity at the contact point and the wheel's overall motion.
Derezzed
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello everybody,
I am having a hard time understanding a very simple principle involving a rolling wheel. I know that the velocity at the bottom "contact point" of a rolling wheel is zero relative to a stationary observer.. yet I don't see how this is true.
So I made a quick sketch and here is my reasoning: As the wheel rolls, it translates horizontally over time. The contact point is no exception. Thus it must have a non-zero velocity, otherwise the wheel is stationary. Basically, the 'delta d'/dt will give the velocity of the contact point, which is non-zero. Why am I wrong? Any light anybody could shed on the matter would be much appreciated!
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4258/rolling.png

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
At any instantaneous moment in time, the relative speed of point of the surface of the wheel in contact the ground is zero, this is different than the 'contact point', which is the point where the wheel touches the ground independent of movment at the wheels surface. The 'contact point' (often called 'contact patch' in the case of tires) moves at the same speed as the wheel. The wheel surface speed relative to the center of the wheel is the same as the speed of the wheel wrt the ground. The surface speed at the bottom of the wheel wrt ground is zero, while the surface speed at the of the wheel wrt ground is 2 times the wheels speed wrt ground.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to PF!

Hello Derezzed! Welcome to PF! :smile:

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycloid" , including the .gif :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks everybody for the quick and effective responses!
 
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top