What factors affect the movement of a ball bearing attached to a spinning disc?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the behavior of a ball bearing attached to a spinning disc and the factors influencing its movement. As the disc spins, the ball bearing rolls backward relative to the disc while moving forward relative to the ground due to friction. It is suggested that the ball will continue to roll regardless of the RPM, as its center of mass remains a constant distance from the outer wall. The conversation also touches on the differences in behavior between spherical and cubic objects in similar conditions. Ultimately, the ball bearing will not stop rolling unless external pressure deforms it significantly.
MrShoe
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone,

Being new here, and not a "Physics Guy" I wasn't sure where this should go, but General Physics seemed like the best bet.

Recently I've been thinking about the effects of circular motion on external objects, and I've hit dead end with one of my trains of thought.

Excuse the crude drawing, but this is what I'm looking at:

BGsFZSS.png


The above picture shows a round disc (meant to be perfectly round/balanced) attached to a drive shaft, with a blue ring on the outside containing a ball bearing. The ring would be a tube inside the outer perimeter of the disc (see below image):

eEjktHa.png


As the disc starts to spin, I imagine that the bearing would also move, probably spinning in the opposite direction, but moving in the same direction. What I'd like to figure out is at what RPM would the bearing stop moving completely, and the factors that can and will change this.

For simplicity, let's say the disc has a diameter of 4" and the ball bearing has a mass of 0.5g. The drive shaft can spin from 0-600 RPM.

I'm sorry if this is vague, I tried to word it the best way I could. If anymore information is needed please let me know.

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello MrShoe! Welcome to PF! :smile:

The friction is always forward, so the ball will always move forward relative to the ground, but will always move, and roll, backward relative to the disc. :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Ohh I see, thank you, but at what point will the ball stop rolling and stick to the outer edge? Or how would I go about finding that? Assuming that the bearing itself and the surface on the inside of the tube are both very smooth.
 
MrShoe said:
Ohh I see, thank you, but at what point will the ball stop rolling and stick to the outer edge?

oh i see … you mean, like a centrifuge, which if it spins fast enough, things will stick to its outer wall?

no, the ball will still roll (backwards) whatever the speed, because the center of mass of the ball will always be a constant distance from the outer wall, no matter what position the ball is

(this is unlike say a cube, which once the centrifuge reaches a certain speed will be unable to "roll" because that would mean being on edge at times, and the distance to the centre of mass is √2 more in that position, and the "centrifugal force" prevents the centre of mass "rising that high")

there is no reason for the ball to stop rolling, at least until the pressure makes it so deformed that it becomes a bit cube-like :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
That makes a lot of sense, actually.

Thank you for the explanation!
 
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...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top