Friction and Rolling Analytical Question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the comparison of two identical disks, A and B, rolling up inclines with different friction conditions. Disk A, which experiences friction, reaches a greater height than disk B, which is on a frictionless incline. The key point is that friction in disk A provides a torque that slows its rotation while allowing it to maintain translational motion, resulting in a longer distance traveled. In contrast, disk B loses only translational kinetic energy to potential energy, limiting its height. The conclusion is that friction plays a crucial role in the dynamics of rolling motion, affecting the maximum height achieved by the disks.
modulus
Messages
127
Reaction score
3
I found this question in HRW (sixth edition), one of the 'checkpoints' (checkpoint 2, to be precise) in chapter 12 on 'rolling, torque, and angular momentum':

Homework Statement


Disks A and Bare identical and roll across a floor with equal speeds. The disk A roll up an incline, reaching a maximum height h, and the disk B moves up an incline that is identical except that it is frictionless. Is the maximum height reached by disk B greater than, less than, or equal to h?


Homework Equations


Work - Kinetic Energy Theorem
Concept of External Forces and Energy Changes (Potential and Kinetic) in a System
Newton's Second Law for Rotation

The Attempt at a Solution


I assumed the disks to lose all their kinetic energy at the maximum height (no more rotation, and no more translation).
So, for disk A, the (negative) work done by gravity (which comes out to be equal to mgh), and the (positive) work done by friction will equal the change in kinetic energy (which should be equal to 0.5{I[w]^2 + m[v]^2}, the rotational and translational kinetic energy.
For disk B, the equation will be [mgh = rotational + translational kinetic energy].
Because of the term pertaining to friction in A's equation, A's height comes out to be greater.

But, in the sample problem immediately after that, it explains that frictional force cannot do any work on a body rolling smoothly down an incline (what?!). But if this is true, friction would never make any difference to a body's rolling motion, so both should reach the same height...yet, the correct answer is that A will reach a greater height.

How?

Please help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
modulus said:
I found this question in HRW (sixth edition), one of the 'checkpoints' (checkpoint 2, to be precise) in chapter 12 on 'rolling, torque, and angular momentum':

Homework Statement


Disks A and Bare identical and roll across a floor with equal speeds. The disk A roll up an incline, reaching a maximum height h, and the disk B moves up an incline that is identical except that it is frictionless. Is the maximum height reached by disk B greater than, less than, or equal to h?


Homework Equations


Work - Kinetic Energy Theorem
Concept of External Forces and Energy Changes (Potential and Kinetic) in a System
Newton's Second Law for Rotation

The Attempt at a Solution


I assumed the disks to lose all their kinetic energy at the maximum height (no more rotation, and no more translation).
So, for disk A, the (negative) work done by gravity (which comes out to be equal to mgh), and the (positive) work done by friction will equal the change in kinetic energy (which should be equal to 0.5{I[w]^2 + m[v]^2}, the rotational and translational kinetic energy.
For disk B, the equation will be [mgh = rotational + translational kinetic energy].
Because of the term pertaining to friction in A's equation, A's height comes out to be greater.

But, in the sample problem immediately after that, it explains that frictional force cannot do any work on a body rolling smoothly down an incline (what?!). But if this is true, friction would never make any difference to a body's rolling motion, so both should reach the same height...yet, the correct answer is that A will reach a greater height.

How?

Please help.


When you say

"So, for disk A, the (negative) work done by gravity (which comes out to be equal to mgh), and the (positive) work done by friction will equal the change in kinetic energy"

I am not sure why you said one work was positive, and one was negative? Surely the disc stops because it does work against gravity [by going up] and friction will ALWAYS be work against what ever you are try to do. Friction will NEVER do work to help you along - friction opposes all changes.
 
Rolling happens when static friction is great enough to keep the point in contact with ground in momentary rest. The translational speed of the rolling body is equal to the linear speed of the rim. If the body stops, both rotation and translation are stopped. But static friction does not do any work, as there is no displacement for the force.
Without friction, there is no rolling. The disk reaching the slope rotating, will rotate with the original angular velocity, as there is no torque to change it.
 
PeterO said:
Surely the disc stops because it does work against gravity [by going up] and friction will ALWAYS be work against what ever you are try to do. Friction will NEVER do work to help you along - friction opposes all changes.

It is a bit strange to say that the disk does work against gravity. On what does it do work? There is only one thing it is contact with: the slope and as it is fixed to the Earth, the disk does work on Earth.

As for friction to be help or not, think of a heavy load on the plate of a lorry, and the vehicle accelerating. What would happen to the load without friction?

ehild
 
Thank you so much, ehild and PeterO. Your help, along with this amazingly helpful module I found on the net: http://cnx.org/content/m14385/latest/
have clarified my doubts.

Ehild, you wrote:
"Without friction, there is no rolling. The disk reaching the slope rotating, will rotate with the original angular velocity, as there is no torque to change it."
I believe this is with reference to disk B, right? If so, then I've got everything right...thank you so much, again!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
modulus said:
Ehild, you wrote:
"Without friction, there is no rolling. The disk reaching the slope rotating, will rotate with the original angular velocity, as there is no torque to change it."
I believe this is with reference to disk B, right? If so, then I've got everything right...thank you so much, again!

Yes, it refers to disk B. The whole KE of A will transform into PE, but only the translational KE transforms into PE in case of disk B.
When disk A rolls uphill, both its translational and rotational motion decelerates. The force of static friction (Fs) provides a torque that opposes rotation, that means it points upward along the slope, so it is an accelerating force for the translational motion opposite to the component of gravity. Therefore the deceleration is slower than without friction, the disk moves longer and travels a longer distance than disk B.



ehild
 

Attachments

  • diskslope.JPG
    diskslope.JPG
    5.1 KB · Views: 453
Last edited:
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top