Effect on rolling motion after an inelastic collision.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the dynamics of a sphere rolling at a constant velocity that undergoes an inelastic collision with a wall. After the collision, the sphere's linear velocity changes, while its angular velocity remains the same initially, leading to a need for friction to create a torque that alters the angular velocity. The participants explore the effects of friction and torque on the sphere's motion, emphasizing the importance of calculating angular acceleration and its impact on linear velocity. A scenario is also proposed where the wall is shorter than the sphere, raising questions about the frictional interaction and its effects on the sphere's motion. The conversation highlights the complexities of motion post-collision and the role of friction in restoring pure rolling.
nerdvana101
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have a problem which I can't figure out.:confused:

Let us take a sphere which is rolling purely at a constant velocity vo.
Now, if the sphere were to collide inelastically with a wall, with coeff. of restitution = e.
Then what is the time after which the sphere starts pure rolling again?
Given coeff, friction = μ

I went about by considering that after the collision, the particle will have evo velocity, but the same angular velocity ω=vo/r.

Now, since the sphere is translating, the angular velocity is in the opp. direction. So the frictional force will cause a torque to change ω.

So, if the body was initially moving rightwards, with clockwise ω, it's new velocity will be leftwards, but ω will remain clockwise. So the frictional force must act towards right to apply a counter-clockwise torque.

After this, I couldn't figure out which way to go.:rolleyes:

Any help appreciated.!:approve:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nerdvana101 said:
I went about by considering that after the collision, the particle will have evo velocity, but the same angular velocity ω=vo/r.
Usually the collision will change the angular velocity as well. If the ball rolls the force of the wall on the ball is not horizontal. It is slightly upwards generating a torque.

But can you assume zero friction with the wall to avoid that. Then the ball will slide on the ground until the friction makes it roll. Use the torque from friction and moment of inertia to find the angular acceleration. Keep in mind that the friction also reduces the velocity, while it changes the angular velocity.
 
So, taking the torque about the COM and then finding the angular acceleration, what happens to the linear velocity? I think the friction force will act in it's opposite direction and stop it from sliding.
so that a = f/m.

Then, I cud equate it as -

v-at = r(ω - αt)
and get the time?
 
thx, just worked it out. got the right answer.

Anyway, I was thinking that if the wall were shorter than the sphere itself? let's say that the wall has a height h, where h < r, i.e., the wall has a height less than that of the height of the center of the sphere. SO, only a corner of that wall will touch that sphere.
Let the friction of the wall also be high enough that it resists slipping of the sphere upon contact. Then what?
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top