Finding Angle of Sphere Falling From Table Edge

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the angle at which a solid spherical ball begins to slip off the edge of a table, given a coefficient of static friction of 0.5. Participants utilize principles of physics, including conservation of energy and torque, to derive equations governing the motion of the sphere. Key equations include the relationship between gravitational force, normal force, and centripetal force, with emphasis on the need to consider the sphere's rigid structure and rotational dynamics. The conversation highlights the importance of integrating forces acting on each particle within the sphere to accurately determine the slipping angle.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's laws of motion
  • Familiarity with concepts of torque and rotational dynamics
  • Knowledge of conservation of energy principles
  • Basic grasp of static friction and its implications in mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of centripetal force for rotating bodies
  • Learn about the dynamics of rigid body motion in physics
  • Explore the concept of co-rotating frames in mechanics
  • Investigate the integration of forces acting on non-point masses
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, mechanical engineers, and anyone interested in understanding the dynamics of rigid bodies and friction in motion.

Satvik Pandey
Messages
591
Reaction score
12

Homework Statement


A solid spherical ball is placed carefully on the edge of a table in the position shown in the figure. The coefficient of static friction between the ball and the edge of the table is 0.5 . It is then given a very slight push. It begins to fall off the table.

Find the angle (in degrees)(with vertical) turned by the ball before it slips.
2e19e72524.fbc259d1f7.UhpXQY.png

Homework Equations

3. The attempt at question

I have came up with some equations. Let ##\theta## be the angle(with vertical) at which the sphere begins to slip.

p3.png

By conservation of energy
##mgr-mgrcos\theta =\frac { 1 }{ 2 } { I }_{ 0 }{ \omega }^{ 2 }##

As ##v=r \omega##

So ##g(1-cos\theta )=\frac { 7 }{ 10 } \frac { { v }^{ 2 } }{ r } ##

By finding torque about the contact point

##mgsin\theta r=\frac { 7 }{ 10 } m{ r }^{ 2 }\alpha ##

As ##a=r \alpha##

So ##\frac { 5gsin\theta }{ 7 } =a##

Also from FBD of the block

##mgcos\theta -N=m\frac { { v }^{ 2 } }{ r } ##

and ##\\ mgsin\theta -\mu N=ma##

I don't know if these equations are right. Please help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Satvik Pandey said:
##mgcos\theta -N=m\frac { { v }^{ 2 } }{ r } ##
I doubt that's right for the centripetal force on a sphere.
 
haruspex said:
I doubt that's right for the centripetal force on a sphere.

Could please explain, why? How to proceed?
 
Can this be solved by just considering the forces at the point of contact tangent to the sphere? That would give:
sin theta = 1/2 cos theta at the time of slipping.
 
Jilang said:
Can this be solved by just considering the forces at the point of contact tangent to the sphere? That would give:
sin theta = 1/2 cos theta at the time of slipping.

Could you please show how did you find that.
 
The frictional force at the point of contact would be mg cos theta x 1/2 at a tangent to the sphere and the gravitational force would be mg sine theta.
 
Jilang said:
Can this be solved by just considering the forces at the point of contact tangent to the sphere?

If you can find the normal force at the contact, then it is simple. Your result follows from equating the normal force with the radial component of the weight, but how do you justify this?
 
voko said:
If you can find the normal force at the contact, then it is simple. Your result follows from equating the normal force with the radial component of the weight, but how do you justify this?

voko ,what do you think about my equations?
 
Satvik Pandey said:
voko ,what do you think about my equations?

I agree with haruspex.
 
  • #10
Jilang said:
Can this be solved by just considering the forces at the point of contact tangent to the sphere? That would give:
sin theta = 1/2 cos theta at the time of slipping.
Not in the way you write, as the ball is not moving in a straight line.

See haruspex.
 
  • #11
voko said:
I agree with haruspex.

Could you please explain why that is not correct?:p
 
  • #12
Satvik Pandey said:
Could you please explain why that is not correct?

Because that assumes that the entire mass of the ball is at its center.
 
  • #13
voko said:
If you can find the normal force at the contact, then it is simple. Your result follows from equating the normal force with the radial component of the weight, but how do you justify this?
Consider the element of the sphere just touching the corner, it is stationary.
 
  • #14
Then how should I proceed?
 
  • #15
Jilang said:
Consider the element of the sphere just touching the corner, it is stationary.

But the rest of the ball is not. How do you justify the insignificance of that?
 
  • #16
voko said:
But the rest of the ball is not. How do you justify the insignificance of that?
The sphere is rigid, you need to assume that the force on every single atom is equal.
 
  • #17
Jilang said:
The sphere is rigid, you need to assume at the force on every single atom is equal.

Why?
 
  • #18
Do you think that the force of gravity only acts on the centre of mass?
 
  • #19
Satvik Pandey said:
Then how should I proceed?

Personally, I would use a co-rotating frame. In that frame, the ball is in equilibrium. The sum of real and fictitious forces is zero.
 
  • #20
voko said:
Personally, I would use a co-rotating frame. In that frame, the ball is in equilibrium. The sum of real and fictitious forces is zero.
Does that give a different answer?
 
  • #21
Jilang said:
Do you think that the force of gravity only acts on the centre of mass?

If that is a question to me, the answer is no.

Regardless, I asked you to justify your statements. Please do so.
 
  • #22
voko said:
Personally, I would use a co-rotating frame. In that frame, the ball is in equilibrium. The sum of real and fictitious forces is zero.

What is 'co-rotating frame'?
Are my other equations correct?
 
  • #23
haruspex said:
No, it's ok - just didn't seem right, and I didn't have time to check it before.

voko has just said that it's not correct. What should I do?:(
 
  • #24
Satvik Pandey said:
Could please explain, why? How to proceed?

Calculate it from first principles by integration.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Satvik Pandey said:
voko has just said that it's not correct. What should I do?:(
No, I mean I hadn't checked ... I have now and it is wrong.
 
  • #26
haruspex said:
Consider a uniform bar with its centre as the point of contact. It would require a centripetal force to get around the corner even though its mass centre does not.
Calculate it from first principles by integration.
I don't understand what you want me to calculate. Please explain more.
 
  • #27
Hm, interesting. Unless I made a mistake in integration, total centrifugal force is ## m \omega^2 r ##, that of a point mass, which means Satvik's disputed normal force equation was correct :)
 
  • #28
voko said:
Hm, interesting. Unless I made a mistake in integration, total centrifugal force is ## m \omega^2 r ##, that of a point mass, which means Satvik's disputed normal force equation was correct :)

But was the way in which I found it incorrect?
 
  • #29
Satvik Pandey said:
But was the way in which I found it incorrect?

As I said earlier, you assumed you could treat the ball as a point mass, and that was not justified.

Have a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame#Newton.27s_second_law_in_the_two_frames

The sum of the centrifugal force, Euler force, normal force, weight and friction must be zero (the Coriolis force is zero because the ball is stationary with respect to itself). The centrifugal and the Euler force must be integrated to obtain the force balance.
 
  • #30
voko said:
Hm, interesting. Unless I made a mistake in integration, total centrifugal force is ## m \omega^2 r ##, that of a point mass, which means Satvik's disputed normal force equation was correct :)
I managed to convince myself it could not be right, but now I see a flaw. I'll trust your integration.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
870
  • · Replies 97 ·
4
Replies
97
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K