Ball rolling down a ramp, no slipping, + friction (conceptual question)

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion about a ball rolling down a ramp without slipping, it is clarified that static friction does not perform work because there is no relative movement at the contact point. The energy transformation involves gravity providing the total energy, which is divided into linear and angular kinetic energy. The method of calculating work done by friction was questioned, as it should not be considered work done by friction since it does not change the total kinetic energy of the ball. The net work done by static friction is zero, as linear and rotational work cancel each other out. Thus, the friction force does not remove energy from the ball; rather, it facilitates the conversion between linear and rotational motion.
joe5185
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
So if a ball is rolling down a ramp and not slipping, you have two torques... the mg*sin(theta) portion of gravity and the (mu)mgcos(theta) for friction. My question is this: Does this friction force remove energy from the ball? (I know it affects the balls rotation but this is just changing forms of energy) My teacher did a problem in class where we wanted to know the final velocity of the ball at the end of the ramp and I subtracted the work due to friction FD. Was I wrong to do this and if so why (my teacher said it was wrong but couldn't say why uggh)? Thanks so much guys
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Usually static friction isn't considered as a force that performs work, since there's no movement between surfaces at the point of contact. If a flat bed truck is accelerating on a level road with a box on the flat bed without sliding so that the box accelerates at the same rate as the truck, then from the ground frame of reference the work performed on the box equals the friction force (between flat bed and box) times the distance traveled with respect to the ground, but the source of energy is the trucks engine, not friction force.

Back to the ball rolling down a ramp, if you calculated the "work done" related to friction, that should equal the gain in angular kinetic energy of the ball, but the source of that energy is gravity, not the friction force. The total energy of the ball increases by m g h (mass, gravity, height of ramp), some of it linear kinetic energy, some of it angular kinetic energy.
 
thanks that's perfect
 
To clarify, the method you used may not have been wrong, only referring to it as work done by friction. The total energy of the ball when it reaches the bottom of the ramp = m g h. The angular kinetic energy = friction force times distance rolled, and linear kinetic energy = total energy - angular kinetic energy. You didn't describe how you determined the friction force, which equals the angular acceleration x angular inertia / radius of ball. Angular acceleration equals linear acceleration / radius. Linear acceleration = g sin(θ) - (friction force / m). This is enough information to solve for acceleration and friction force based on θ and the angular inertia of the ball.
 
joe5185 said:
Does this friction force remove energy from the ball?
no friction does not change the total kinetic energy (linear + rotational) of ball
joe5185 said:
Was I wrong to do this and if so why (my teacher said it was wrong but couldn't say why uggh)?
yes you were wrong
static friction will act but net work done by static friction on body =0
since linear work = (-1)*rotational work
since (force . linear displacement) = (-1) * ( torque . angular displacement ) (. denotes scalar product operator)
so net work by friction (linear work + rotational work) = 0
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top