How Does Angular Velocity of a Rolling Cylinder Change Over Time?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the angular velocity of a solid cylinder rolling down an inclined plane, influenced by stiction. The participants analyze two approaches to derive the angular acceleration, represented by the equations: dω/dt = (2g sin(α))/(3r) and dω/dt = (2μg cos(α))/(3r). The conversation emphasizes the importance of the moment of inertia, defined by the parallel axis theorem, and the necessity of considering both linear and rotational dynamics in the analysis. The consensus is that the cylinder is assumed to roll without slipping, relying on static friction.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of angular motion and angular velocity
  • Familiarity with the moment of inertia and the parallel axis theorem
  • Knowledge of static friction and its role in rolling motion
  • Basic principles of dynamics, including torque and linear acceleration
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of angular acceleration in rolling motion using Newton's second law
  • Explore the relationship between linear and angular acceleration in rolling objects
  • Investigate the effects of different coefficients of friction on rolling dynamics
  • Learn about the conditions for rolling without slipping and the implications of slipping
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, mechanical engineers, and anyone interested in the dynamics of rolling motion and the interplay between linear and angular velocities.

RiotRick
Messages
42
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


rotationProblem.JPG

A solid cylinder rolls down an inclined plane because of stiction. How does angular velocity change over time?
Given:
##m,R,g,\alpha,\mu## where ##\mu## is the friction coefficient

Homework Equations


[/B]
##J_{cm} = 1/2 m*r^2## moment of inertia
m = mass of the cylinder
Parallel Axis theorem: ##J=J_{cm}+mr^2##
## M = I*d\omega/dt ## = Torque

The Attempt at a Solution


First I thought I take the torque at the center of mass pulling it down
##R*mg*sin(\alpha)=d\omega/dt*(J_{cm}+mr^2)##
which gives me as an end result:
## d\omega/dt = \frac{2*g*sin(\alpha)}{3*r} ##
= ## \omega = \frac{2*g*sin(\alpha)}{3*r}*t ##
Then I thought it would have been simpler if I looked at the point of friction:
## M/J = r \times F / J = r*F_{friction}/J = \mu*r*mg*cos(\alpha)/J=d\omega/dt ##
=## \frac{2*\mu*g*cos(\alpha)}{3r}=d\omega/dt ##
=## \frac{2*\mu*g*cos(\alpha)}{3r}*t=\omega ##

Are both correct, one of them or both garbage?
 

Attachments

  • rotationProblem.JPG
    rotationProblem.JPG
    52.8 KB · Views: 869
Physics news on Phys.org
You cannot just ignore the change in linear velocity.

Edit: Also, is the cylinder assumed to be rolling without slipping or do you need to take slipping into account?
 
RiotRick said:
First I thought I take the torque at the center of mass pulling it down
It does not seem to me that is what you did. You appear to have taken moments about the point of contact. In particular, you had to use the parallel axis theorem to get the MoI.
This is a good approach because it avoids dealing with the frictional force.
RiotRick said:
Then I thought it would have been simpler if I looked at the point of friction:
Which is what I think you did the first time. If you mean to consider the torque exerted by friction then you would now be taking moments about the mass centre, so the MoI is just ½mr2, but somehow you still got a 3 in there.
You will need another equation relating the frictional force to the linear acceleration, and another relating rotational to linear acceleration when rolling.
Also, you seem to have applied this popular but erroneous equation:
Static frictional force = coefficient of static friction x normal force.
That contains a serious flaw. Can you spot it?
Orodruin said:
is the cylinder assumed to be rolling without slipping or do you need to take slipping into account?
It says "stiction", which I take to mean static friction.
 
Thank you both for the quick answer. It's rolling without slipping

@haruspex: So you think the first answer is correct?
I used in both cases the parallel axis theorem. So you mean in the 2nd case it's just the moment of inertia? Why is that? Because the rotation axis never falls together with the "ground"?
haruspex said:
That contains a serious flaw. Can you spot it?
No. I've never heard that there is something fishy with it
 
RiotRick said:
No. I've never heard that there is something fishy with it
The coefficient of static friction tells you how hard you can push something before it "breaks loose" and starts slipping.

Say, for instance, you have a 50 kg box on a floor with a coefficient of static friction of 0.1 and gravity of 10 meters/sec^2. You rapidly calculate that you need a horizontal force of 50 * 0.1 * 10 = 50 N to overcome static friction and get it moving.

What is the force of static friction if you push the box horizontally with only 40 N?
 
RiotRick said:
in the 2nd case it's just the moment of inertia?
If you are taking moments about the mass centre then the torque you calculate is producing an angular acceleration about the mass centre. So no parallel axis involved.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 97 ·
4
Replies
97
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
933
Replies
39
Views
3K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
Replies
46
Views
5K