En Joy
- 16
- 0
Can anyone explain this "mathematically"? i.e. how to calculate the time in each cases?
Last edited:
The discussion revolves around the mathematical modeling of the constrained falling of three balls, particularly focusing on calculating the time taken for each ball under different paths. The conversation touches on concepts from variational calculus and the Brachistochrone problem, exploring the effects of path length and speed on the motion of the balls.
Participants express various viewpoints on the mathematical modeling and assumptions involved, indicating that multiple competing views remain without a clear consensus on the optimal approach or solution.
Some assumptions regarding the simplifications made in the modeling, such as the neglect of rotational inertia and the conditions under which the Brachistochrone is optimal, remain unresolved.
Sorry, I did the mistake. It should not be in "B" level. But I've corrected that.Orodruin said:Yes, but not at B level. The math required is called variational calculus. You will need multivariable calculus and differential equations as prerequisites.
At B level, I would say that it is a combination of maximising the speed and minimising the path length. The upper path is shorter, but the ball accelerates slower in the beginning. The lower path gives a larger mean speed, but is longer.
This is related, but neglects the rotational inertia of the balls:En Joy said:Can anyone explain this "mathematically"? i.e. how to calculate the time in each cases?
Here is the full clip BTW:En Joy said:Can anyone explain this "mathematically"? i.e. how to calculate the time in each cases?
If one makes the simplifying assumption that the balls roll without slipping then one can model the motion by using an "effective inertial mass" which bundles the effect of the ball's inertial mass together with its moment of inertia. The effect is the same as if the acceleration of gravity was reduced. Unless I am missing something, the Brachistochrone should still be optimal in such a case.A.T. said:This is related, but neglects the rotational inertia of the balls:
I thought about this a bit and I think it is correct as long as the ball radius is small in comparison to the curvature of the track such that the angular velocity of the ball is directly given by the ball's radius and the velocity of the ball.jbriggs444 said:If one makes the simplifying assumption that the balls roll without slipping then one can model the motion by using an "effective inertial mass" which bundles the effect of the ball's inertial mass together with its moment of inertia. The effect is the same as if the acceleration of gravity was reduced. Unless I am missing something, the Brachistochrone should still be optimal in such a case.
Good point about the radius. I'd missed that.Orodruin said:I thought about this a bit and I think it is correct as long as the ball radius is small in comparison to the curvature of the track such that the angular velocity of the ball is directly given by the ball's radius and the velocity of the ball.