Energy conservation/rolling object

  • Thread starter Thread starter Epiphone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
AI Thread Summary
A ring with a mass of 2.4 kg and a radius range of 6.0 cm to 8.0 cm is rolling up an incline at an angle of 36.9 degrees, initially traveling at 2.8 m/s. The discussion centers on using energy conservation principles to determine how far the ring ascends before rolling back down. The user initially calculates kinetic energy incorrectly, suggesting that translational and rotational kinetic energy are equal, which is not the case for rolling objects. A correction is provided, emphasizing the need to properly account for both translational and rotational kinetic energy in the calculations. The user is encouraged to review the concepts to resolve their confusion and verify their final answer of 3.834 m up the incline.
Epiphone
Messages
18
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A ring of mass 2.4kg, inner radius 6.0cm, and outer radius 8.0cm is rolling (without slipping) up an inclined plane that makes an angle of theta=36.9 with the horizontal. At the moment the ring is x=2.0 m up the plane its speed is 2.8 m/s. the ring continues up the plane for some additional distance and then rolls back down. Assuming that the plane is long enough so that the ring does not roll off the top end, how far up the plane does it go?

Homework Equations


K = .5Iw^2 + .5mv^2
I = MR^2

The Attempt at a Solution


I tried to solve this using energy conservation.
K = .5Iw^2 + .5mv^2
after you plug in the moment of inertia in variables, you can cancel out the radius i think to get:

K = .5mv^2 + .5mv^2
K = mv^2

it struck me odd that translational KE would equal rotational KE, and why would they give me 2 values for R if R cancels out?

plugging in values for m and v, you get:
K = 18.816J

then i used energy conservation:
U+K = Ufinal

using trig to find the U value at x = 2

35.32+18.816 = mgh
h = 2.302

using trig again to find the length up incline
my final answer is 3.834m up the incline. I really don't think its right. any help checking would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
anyone?
sorry if bumping is taboo, but i have to go soon!
this is my last hope!
 
Epiphone said:


The Attempt at a Solution


I tried to solve this using energy conservation.
K = .5Iw^2 + .5mv^2
after you plug in the moment of inertia in variables, you can cancel out the radius i think to get:

K = .5mv^2 + .5mv^2
K = mv^2


Your first equation for Kinetic Energy is incorrect.

The Kinetic Energy of a rolling object is \frac{1}{2} M w^2 + frac{1}{2} Mv^2
where 'w' is rotational speed and 'v' is translational speed.

I would take another look at the book until it makes more sense to you.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top