Find the Height of an Inclined Plane for a Rolling Disk

  • Thread starter Thread starter juggalomike
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Disc Hill Rolling
Click For Summary
A solid disk of radius 1.60 m and mass 2.30 kg rolls down an inclined plane, reaching an angular velocity of 4.9 rad/s at the bottom. The initial energy equation used was incorrect due to a miscalculation of the disk's moment of inertia and the omission of rotational energy. It's crucial to account for both translational and rotational kinetic energy in the energy balance. The correct approach involves using the equation mgh = (1/2)mv^2, which reflects the energy conversion as the disk rolls down. Properly incorporating both forms of kinetic energy is essential for accurately determining the height of the inclined plane.
juggalomike
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
1. The problem statement, all variables and given known data
A solid disk of radius 1.60 m and mass 2.30 kg rolls without slipping to the bottom of an inclined plane. If the angular velocity of the disk is 4.9 rad/s at the bottom, what is the height of the inclined plane?


Homework Equations



mgh=1/2*I*W^2

The Attempt at a Solution



i tried using conservation of energy

2.3*9.81*x=.5*(2.30*1.60^2)*4.99^2
x=3.19

but that is incorrect.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1) Your formula for the inertia of a solid disk is incorrect.

2) What other energy is in your system that you have not yet accounted for?
 
calef said:
1) Your formula for the inertia of a solid disk is incorrect.

2) What other energy is in your system that you have not yet accounted for?

ah your right about the inertia part, but I am not sure what other energy? if the disc is at the bottom of the hill H=0 so mgh is not a factor, and i would use EITHER kinetic or rotational energy right? not both?
 
juggalomike said:
ah your right about the inertia part, but I am not sure what other energy? if the disc is at the bottom of the hill H=0 so mgh is not a factor, and i would use EITHER kinetic or rotational energy right? not both?

Remember, your ball is rolling without slipping. So you do have to include both the rotational and kinetic.

The energy balance equation you wrote doesn't easily correspond to a physical situation, so imagine, instead, you wrote:

mgh = (1/2)mv^2

This would correspond to a ball sliding down the plane not slipping at all.

I suppose you could make a case for your energy balance equation being something like a disk sitting in an elevator going down with constant velocity, where the farther down it goes, the more your disk spins, in direct proportion to the lost gravitational potential.

But you definitely have to include both kinetic energies in your case.
 
Thread 'Correct statement about size of wire to produce larger extension'
The answer is (B) but I don't really understand why. Based on formula of Young Modulus: $$x=\frac{FL}{AE}$$ The second wire made of the same material so it means they have same Young Modulus. Larger extension means larger value of ##x## so to get larger value of ##x## we can increase ##F## and ##L## and decrease ##A## I am not sure whether there is change in ##F## for first and second wire so I will just assume ##F## does not change. It leaves (B) and (C) as possible options so why is (C)...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K