A ball climbing a ramp while "rolling the wrong way"

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving a ball rolling down a ramp with friction and then climbing up a frictionless slope. The original poster describes the mechanics of energy conservation and questions the validity of the book's claim that the ball returns to its initial height. The problem touches on concepts of rotational and translational kinetic energy, as well as the effects of friction.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of energy conservation in the context of the ball's motion, questioning how rotational kinetic energy affects its ability to climb back up the ramp. There are discussions about the potential for sliding and energy dissipation due to friction, as well as the clarity and accuracy of the problem as presented in the textbook.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants sharing their interpretations and concerns about the problem's setup and the textbook's explanation. Some express skepticism about the book's claim, while others suggest that the problem may be more complex than it appears. There is no consensus yet, but various lines of reasoning are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the lack of specific information regarding the friction coefficient and the shape of the ramp, which may influence the outcome of the problem. The discussion also highlights inconsistencies in the textbook's approach and the challenges faced by students in understanding the problem.

  • #31
haruspex said:
You can get around that with calculus.
##\Delta L=I\Delta\omega=r\int F.dt##
##\Delta p=m\Delta v=\int F.dt##.
Eliminate ##\int F.dt##.

Sure, I know. But 17 yr old students won't know integrals for a couple of years or so. I meant harder for them.

On second thoughts, they do have the concept of average. So for them we say: even if friction changes along the way, by definition its overall effect can be described through an average friction
##\Delta L=I\Delta\omega=r \bar F \Delta t##
##\Delta p=m\Delta v=\bar F \Delta t##.
Eliminate ##\bar F \Delta t##

This is actually what I was referring to when I mentioned "average friction force and torque" a few posts back [post-6492781].

haruspex said:
It would be very rare to worry about acceleration being discontinuous.

Well, at the end of the frictionless surface the discontinuity is perhaps to be expected. But I find the other one, when the ball starts rolling, kind of intriguing.
For some reason I expect the speed to vary smoothly between v_0 and v_1.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
FranzDiCoccio said:
Well, at the end of the frictionless surface the discontinuity is perhaps to be expected. But I find the other one, when the ball starts rolling, kind of intriguing.
For some reason I expect the speed to vary smoothly between #v_0# and #v_1#.
How about a sliding object coming to a stop? That's usually taken as a sudden transition from a constant-ish nonzero acceleration to a zero one. Of course, one could allow that no object is perfectly rigid, so it doesn’t all stop at once, etc., ultimately getting down to oscillations of interacting dipoles. But does the standard simplification keep you awake at night?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FranzDiCoccio
  • #33
Ok, I see... The point is that acceleration is caused by kinetic friction, which vanishes as soon as the object stops.

But it works even if the object does not stop, e.g. because the horizontal plane it is sliding on has a "rough patch" of finite length, that is not sufficient to stop it.

Here too the speed decreases linearly, but won't vanish.

Something similar happens with the sliding ball, although it's a bit more subtle.
When the object attains the "rolling without slipping" speed, the kinetic friction vanishes even though the surface has no discontinuity.
The relevant friction is static, which does not produce work, and hence it does not slow down the object further.Cool. Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
23K