Ball rolling with varying deceleration

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving a formula for the position of a rolling ball over time, accounting for initial speed and the effects of air resistance. The user seeks to express the position as a function of time while considering that deceleration due to air drag is proportional to the square of the speed. The conversation highlights the challenge of eliminating speed from the position equation, leading to the suggestion of using differential equations to model velocity changes over time. It is noted that at low speeds, drag may be proportional to speed rather than speed squared, and integrating the acceleration function is necessary for accurate modeling. The integration approach is recommended to account for the effects of drag and potentially friction on the ball's motion.
inflation
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I'd like to see an example of a formula describing the position of a rolling ball over time. It has been given one impuls at the start, after which air resistance and friction decelerates it (the ground is flat). At high speed the ball might be sliding, until it decelerates to some treshold speed when it starts to roll. The deceleration might behave quite different in those two modes, I guess.

How should I formulate the balls position as a function of time based on those characteristics?

I intend to observe the position of a rolling (sliding) ball at different times, and I want to formulate a function to fit with those observations in order to figure out where the ball has been at any given point in time. I thought it might make more sense to estimate the parameters of a model with some basis in real physics, rather than to fit any curve.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
BUMP
Let's skip the "two modes" sliding and rolling for now, and just look at air drag:

I want an expression for the position of an object over time. I know its position x0 and speed v0 at time t=0. I know that it is decelerating due to air drag and can assume that the deceleration is proportional to speed squared: a=k*v² (can I do this and assume that k has the unit "1/meter" so that the units work out?)

Now, step by step:

1) The position given constant speed is x = v0*t.
2) Given constant deceleration x = v0*t-a*t²/2.
3) With air drag changing the deceleration x = v0*t-k*v²*t²/2.

My problem is to get rid of that "v" in equation 3. How does v change over time?

If I try something like this:
x = a*t²/2
a = 2x/t²
2x/t² = k*v²
v = root(2x/(k*t²))

And insert in equation 3:
x = v0*t-k*[2x/(k*t²)]*t²/2.

Then t cancels out from everything but v0*t so that the motion is linear. So I was just going in a circle there.
 
Last edited:
inflation said:
Now, step by step:

1) The position given constant speed is x = v0*t.
2) Given constant deceleration x = v0*t-a*t²/2.
3) With air drag changing the deceleration x = v0*t-k*v²*t²/2.
Your equation #2 is only valid for constant acceleration, so it won't apply here. To see how the velocity varies with time, you must integrate the acceleration function.
 
Yea you can assume that, but I believe at low speeds drag is proportional only to v. I think you can write a differential equation: v' = (k/m)*v then just find the solution to
v' - (k/m)*v = 0 which I got was v(t) = c1*e^(kt/m) c1 being a new constant from integrating. This is just a hunch as I am new to applying DEs and this only takes in drag as the only thing affecting the motion. You can add friction in too.
 
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...
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/
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