Have a problem with this Rotational Motion question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving a rotational motion problem involving a wheel rolling down a hill. The initial calculations led to incorrect speeds due to a misunderstanding of energy conservation principles, particularly regarding initial kinetic energy. The correct approach involves recognizing that the wheel's initial kinetic energy must be included in the energy balance equation. By adding the height instead of subtracting it, the correct final speed of 23 m/s is derived. The key takeaway is the importance of accurately accounting for both potential and kinetic energy in such problems.
Shuo Xue
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


[/B]
A wheel, of radius 200mm, rolls over the top of a hill with a speed of 20m/s and negligible friction losses. (I = 1/2mr^2)

Homework Equations


[/B]
Find the speed of the wheel when it is 10m below the top.

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
mgh = 1/2mv^2 + 1/2IW^2

W= v/r

mgh = 1/2mv^2 + 1/2(1/2mr^2)(v/r)^2
mgh = 1/2mv^2 + 1/4mv^2
gh = 3/4mv^2
v^2 = 4gh/3
v^2 = 4(9.81)(10)/3
v = 11.4m/s

I got v = 11.4 m/s
but my answer is incorrect as it is different from the answer given which is 23m/s.
I want to know the correct solution.

I've also tried searching for the height first.

h = (3/4v^2)/g
h = 30.58m

and then 10m below from the top

h = 20.58m

v^2 = 4gh/3
v^2 = 4(9.81)(20.58)/3
v = 16.41m/s

Which is still far from the answer also.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
h = 30.58m

I tried adding 10m to h instead of subtracting 10m

so, h = 40.58

v^2 = 4gh/3
v^2 = 4(9.81)(40.58)/3
v = 23m/s

Doing it this way, I got the correct answer.
 
Shuo Xue said:
I tried adding 10m to h instead of subtracting 10m
Do you now understand why that is correct?
 
The wheel is already rolling on the top of a hill
my mistake is I assume the initial kinetic energy is 0 but it is actually not.
So initial energy is mgh + 1/2mv^2 + 1/2IW^2mgh + 1/2mv^2 + 1/4mv^2 = 1/2mv^2 + 1/4mv^2

gh + 1/2v^2 + 1/4v^2 = 1/2v^2 + 1/4v^2

gh + 3/4v^2 = 3/4v^2

(9.81)(10) + (3/4)(20)^2 = 3/4v^2

398.1 = 3/4v^2

v^2 = 4(398.1)/3
v^2 = 530.8
v = 23m/s

Here is another way to answer the question.
This solution is more understandable for me than the earlier solution.
 
haruspex said:
Do you now understand why that is correct?

Although I got the correct answer for that, I still don't understand why do I have to add 10m to the height that I got instead of subtracting 10m to it.
 
I also cannot assume that the final potential energy is 0 so

I think this is the most understandable solution.

mgh + 1/2mv^2 + 1/2IW^2 = mgh + 1/2mv^2 + 1/2IW^2

mgh + 1/2mv^2 + 1/2mv^2 = mgh + 1/2mv^2 + 1/2mv^2

gh + 3/4v^2 = gh + 3/4v^2

(9.81)(30.58) + (3/4)(20^2) = (9.81)(20.58) + 3/4v^2

(9.81)(30.58) - (9.81)(20.58) + 300 = 3/4v^2

3/4v^2 = (9.81)(30.58-20.58) + 300

3/4v^2 = (9.81)(10) + 300

3/4v^2 = 398.1
v^2 = 530.8
v = 23m/s
 
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