Conservation of energy in rotational motion

AI Thread Summary
A uniform marble rolls down a symmetric bowl, starting from rest, with the left side providing friction for rolling and the right side being frictionless. The discussion revolves around calculating how high the marble ascends on the smooth side and the implications of friction on energy conservation. It is clarified that in rolling without slipping, friction does not perform work, as there is no relative motion between the surfaces. The energy conservation equations are applied, emphasizing that total mechanical energy remains constant despite the presence of friction on one side. Understanding these principles helps explain why the marble can reach a higher point on the frictionless side compared to if both sides were rough.
mit_hacker
Messages
86
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


(Q) A uniform marble rolls down a symmetric bowl, starting from rest at the top of the left side. The top of each side is a distance h above the bottom of the bowl. The left half of the bowl is rough enough to cause the marble to roll without slipping but the right half is frictionless.

(a) How far up the smooth side will the marble go, measured vertically from the bottom?

(b) How high up would the marble go if both sides were as rough as the left hand side?

(c) How do you account for the fact that the marble goes higher up with friction on the right side than without friction?



Homework Equations



KE = (1/2)MV^2 + (1/2)IcmW^2.
PE = mgh

The Attempt at a Solution



I am completely blank.
How do I account for the friction on just the right hand side?
Since the bowl is symmetrical, can I take its radius to be h?
Is it ok to say that the angular displacement of the marble is pi/2 from top to bottom?

Pleeeaseeeee help!:cry:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
initial energy = mgh

bottom of the bowl, energy is (1/2)MV^2 + (1/2)IcmW^2.

relate W to V...

what do you get for V?

when it goes up the frictionless side what happens to the translational energy? what happens to the rotational energy?
 
Friction?

What about friction? Don't we deduct that from the expression

(1/2)MV^2 + (1/2)IcmW^2 to get (1/2)MV^2 + (1/2)IcmW^2 -fD where f is force of friction?

Why don't we take that into account?
 
mit_hacker said:
What about friction? Don't we deduct that from the expression

(1/2)MV^2 + (1/2)IcmW^2 to get (1/2)MV^2 + (1/2)IcmW^2 -fD where f is force of friction?

Why don't we take that into account?

friction only does work when the surfaces slide against each other... in this case it is rolling without any sliding... no energy is lost.

work by friction = frictional force*distance (this is the distance the point of application moves... but in this case there is no slipping, the point of application doesn't move at all... distance = 0).
 
Thanks!

Hey, thanks a ton for that! I never knew that in rolling, friction does not do any work. Again, thanks a ton!:biggrin:
 
mit_hacker said:
Hey, thanks a ton for that! I never knew that in rolling, friction does not do any work. Again, thanks a ton!:biggrin:

no prob. :)
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top