How High to Release a Mass for Loop-the-Loop Motion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Erwin Schrodinger
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Power Work
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the minimum height from which a mass must be released to successfully complete a loop-the-loop motion without falling off. The key equation derived is that the height h must be greater than 2r, where r is the radius of the loop. However, it is clarified that simply setting h equal to 2r is insufficient, as this would result in the mass reaching the top with zero velocity. To maintain circular motion at the top of the loop, the mass must have enough kinetic energy to ensure it doesn't fall off, which involves considering centripetal force. Ultimately, the correct approach involves calculating the necessary kinetic energy and potential energy to ensure the mass completes the loop successfully.
Erwin Schrodinger
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Hmm I thought I was pretty good at this stuff but I guess not. :mad: I'd really appreciate it if someone could show me how to solve this problem. Does it involve anything more than work, power, and energy concepts?

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/7159/presentation19ai.jpg

A small mass m slides without friction along the looped apparatus shown. If the object is to remain on the track, even at the top of the circle (whose radius is r), what minimum height h must it be released?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
What's your answer? Just energy.
 
What do you mean just energy? Sorry I don't understand your response. All I could come up with was mgh = (something), but I don't know what to equate it to.
 
Just energy methods are needed. The answer I'm getting is given right in the picture.. to "loop the loop" you need enough kinetic energy when youre at the bottom of the circle to get up to the top, so mg(2r) needs to be smaller than the KE of the object at the bottom. So the object has to get atleast that KE from falling from a height h. What is h?
 
Hmm okay I think I understand.

For the sliding down the slope part:

mgh = 1/2mv^2

Then for the loop:

1/2mv^2 > mg(2r) so the ball continues to move when its at the top of the loop

Then:
mgh > mg(2r)
h > 2r

Is that correct?
 
Yes sir. It asked for a minimum height so you don't need a >
 
So I should just write h = 2r then? Great! Thanks for the help.
 
Erwin Schrodinger said:
So I should just write h = 2r then? Great! Thanks for the help.

Sorry to interrupt, but that is not correct. If h=2r, then the ball will reach the top of the loop with zero velocity and fall down. It will in reality fall down before it reaches the top, since it has motion in the horizontal direction as well.

To complete the loop, the ball must have enough kinetic energy at the top so it makes a circular trajectory and not fall down in a parabolic path, which it does when it looses contact with the loop.
To maintain circular motion, you need centripetal force, which is provided in this case by the normal force of the loop and by gravity. Can you figure out what velocity the ball should have at the top so that gravity will provide the necessary centripetal acceleration?
 
you have both kinetic energy (1/2 mv^2) as well as potential energy (mg2r) at the top of the loop.
 
  • #10
Galileo said:
Sorry to interrupt, but that is not correct. If h=2r, then the ball will reach the top of the loop with zero velocity and fall down. It will in reality fall down before it reaches the top, since it has motion in the horizontal direction as well.
To complete the loop, the ball must have enough kinetic energy at the top so it makes a circular trajectory and not fall down in a parabolic path, which it does when it looses contact with the loop.
To maintain circular motion, you need centripetal force, which is provided in this case by the normal force of the loop and by gravity. Can you figure out what velocity the ball should have at the top so that gravity will provide the necessary centripetal acceleration?

I can't believe I ****ed that up. Is 5/2 the correct coefficient?
 
  • #11
whozum said:
I can't believe I ****ed that up. Is 5/2 the correct coefficient?
Yup. blahdiblah
 
Back
Top