I Cylinder Beats Sphere in Race (weird case)?

AI Thread Summary
In a unique setup where a cylinder and sphere roll on a horizontally pulled plank, the cylinder outpaces the sphere despite the sphere's lower moment of inertia. Calculations indicate that the cylinder's linear acceleration is greater than the sphere's when both are subjected to the plank's motion. The reasoning suggests that while the sphere has less resistance to rolling, the cylinder's higher moment of inertia allows it to maintain greater linear acceleration in the lab frame. This contrasts with the expected outcome on an incline, where the sphere typically wins due to its lower rotational inertia. The discussion highlights the importance of frame of reference in analyzing motion and acceleration dynamics.
FallenApple
Messages
564
Reaction score
61
Ok so we all know that when rolling down a fixed incline under gravity, a sphere will beat a cylinder in a race due to the fact that it has less rotational inertia.

However, in the following set up, the cylinder beats the sphere.

Say the cylinder and sphere are side by side on a horizontal plank. The plank is pulled such that the sphere and cylinder rolls on it without slipping. Say that the plank is pulled to the right.( diagram below). We want to know in a race to the right, which would win. In the lab frame of reference, both the objects would be accelerating linearly forwards to the right( because of friction) while in the plank from of reference, both objects would be accelerating to the left.

Roll_on_Plank.png
In the diagram, for a rolling object in general, a1 is the planks acceleration relative to the lab frame and a2 is the linear acceleration of the rolling object relative to the lab frame.

According to my calculations, the linear acceleration of the cylinder is 1/3=.33 of the acceleration of the plank while the linear acceleration of the sphere is 2/7=.29.

So if they start side by side, and we pull the plank to the right for 1 sec. Then the cylinder would have traveled about .33 meters to the right while the sphere would have traveled about .29 meters to the right, making the cylinder win.

But that was just from a calculation and not that satisfying for developing intuition.

So would the following reasoning work?

If I want to know which one wins, I don't need to do any calculations other than knowing the moments of inertia of the sphere and cylinder.

When the plank accelerates to the right, for both objects to be rolling without slipping, they must roll counterclockwise. In the reference frame of the plank, both are rolling to the left, with a ficticious force acting on their CMs, pulling them to the left, opposing friction. So since this is like the incline problem above. The sphere's smaller moment of inertia would give less resistence to rolling, hence less resistence to the left acceleration under the ficticious force, hence in the plank frame, the sphere wins, as expected. But in the outside lab frame, this means that the sphere stays more left than the cylinder over time.

Does this reasoning work?
What about the lab frame? Can I say from the lab frames perspective the one with the higher moment of inertia (the cylinder) would not like to have as much angular acceleration, so most of it's motion is in it forward linear accleration as compared to the sphere, where the ratio of its forward linear acceleration to its angular acceleration would be less.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
FallenApple said:
However, in the following set up, the cylinder beats the sphere.
Because you have changed the direction of the race. On the incline the cylinder also wins the race upwards (in the direction of the surface's proper acceleration), just like in your set up.
 
A.T. said:
Because you have changed the direction of the race. On the incline the cylinder also wins the race upwards (in the direction of the surface's proper acceleration), just like in your set up.

Why is the cylinder's proper accelerating upwards? I thought that the acceleration as as measured from an inertial frame would be greater for the sphere rolling down incline compared to the cylinder rolling down the incline. This situation is reversed for the plank setup. It's only the same when viewed from the noninertial frame of the plank.
 
FallenApple said:
Why is the cylinder's proper accelerating upwards.
I wrote about the surface's proper acceleration (relative to free fall). Consider its component parallel to the surface - the cylinder ends up further along that direction in both cases. That is a frame invariant physical fact.
 
  • Like
Likes Nugatory
A.T. said:
I wrote about the surface's proper acceleration (relative to free fall). Consider its component parallel to the surface - the cylinder ends up further along that direction in both cases. That is a frame invariant physical fact.

If an object is rolling down an incline, it is free falling down the incline with k*g*sin(theta) where k is a constant that depends on the geometry of the object. So relative the the object, the perceived ground( surface of incline) would be moving backwards. Is that what you meant?
 
FallenApple said:
If an object is rolling down an incline, it is free falling down the incline with k*g*sin(theta) where k is a constant that depends on the geometry of the object. So relative the the object, the perceived ground( surface of incline) would be moving backwards. Is that what you meant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Hello! I am generating electrons from a 3D gaussian source. The electrons all have the same energy, but the direction is isotropic. The electron source is in between 2 plates that act as a capacitor, and one of them acts as a time of flight (tof) detector. I know the voltage on the plates very well, and I want to extract the center of the gaussian distribution (in one direction only), by measuring the tof of many electrons. So the uncertainty on the position is given by the tof uncertainty...
Back
Top