Does friction always result in energy loss?

AI Thread Summary
Friction does not always result in energy loss; if a ball rolls down a frictionless ramp, it will slide without rotating. When friction is present, it can enable rotation without necessarily causing energy loss, provided the ball does not slide. The energy dissipated through friction is negligible in many scenarios, such as a bowling ball rolling back up a ramp. However, in cases with significant external factors like sand on the ramp, friction's impact on energy loss becomes more pronounced. Overall, while friction is a nonconservative force, its effects on energy can vary based on the specific conditions of the system.
TheCanadian
Messages
361
Reaction score
13
Hi,

If I have a ball at the top of a ramp, it will have rotational and translational kinetic energy as it begins moving. If the ramp was frictionless, just to confirm, would it be possible for the ball to rotate or would it just slide with the point of contact on the ramp fixed?

Also, if there is friction and the ball is allowed to rotate, will the ball lose energy while it goes from the top of the ramp to the bottom? To my understanding, friction is a nonconservative force and will result in energy dissipated from the system (i.e. the ball). But in this case, if friction is necessary for the ball to rotate, would I have to account for a loss of energy term when trying to figure out the ball's position, speed, and acceleration as it moves on the ramp? In this case, is the energy loss through friction negligible? Would it ever not be negligible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
TheCanadian said:
Hi,

If I have a ball at the top of a ramp, it will have rotational and translational kinetic energy as it begins moving. If the ramp was frictionless, just to confirm, would it be possible for the ball to rotate or would it just slide with the point of contact on the ramp fixed? (1)

Also, if there is friction and the ball is allowed to rotate, will the ball lose energy while it goes from the top of the ramp to the bottom? (2)

To my understanding, friction is a nonconservative force and will result in energy dissipated from the system (i.e. the ball). (3)
But in this case, if friction is necessary for the ball to rotate, would I have to account for a loss of energy term when trying to figure out the ball's position, speed, and acceleration as it moves on the ramp? In this case, is the energy loss through friction negligible? (4)
Would it ever not be negligible? (5)

(1) Yes: slide. There is no force to make it rotate.
(2) not necessarily: if it doesn't slide at all the friction force does no work.
(3) mechanical energy is not lost if the friction force only makes the ball rotate (see (2) )
(4) can be safely ignored for e.g. a returning bowling ball that rolls up the ramp for the next shot.
(5) e.g. if there's a lot of sand on a ramp

--
 
  • Like
Likes TheCanadian
BvU is correct about the ramp, although there is another form of friction- air resistance. Again, it is very negligible, however you would account for it if you want EXTREMELY precise measurements.
 
Yeah, for a styrofoam ball in heavy fog this doesn't fly at all. So let's assume vacuum :smile:
 
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...
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