Inclined Plane Physics: Cylinder vs. Superconductor

Click For Summary
When comparing a solid cylinder and a superconductor sliding down an inclined plane, the superconductor will always outperform the cylinder due to the latter's energy being partially converted into rotational kinetic energy. This means that some gravitational potential energy is used for rotation rather than purely for translational motion. The discussion highlights that a solid cylinder will reach the bottom of the incline faster than a hollow cylinder because of its lower moment of inertia. Friction plays a crucial role; with no friction, the cylinder would not roll, while a low-friction scenario could allow the sliding object to win. Ultimately, the interaction of friction and mass distribution significantly influences the outcome of the race down the incline.
cragar
Messages
2,546
Reaction score
3
Lets say I have an inclined plane and I roll a solid cylinder down it and slide a brick down it.
And let's say I slide the brick down on oil,Or better yet I slide a superconductor down and have It float above bar magnets. The superconductor moving down the plane will always beat the cylinder. We let them go from rest. Is this because some of the Gravitational potential energy goes into rotating the cylinder and not just sliding it down the ramp.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
cragar said:
Is this because some of the Gravitational potential energy goes into rotating the cylinder and not just sliding it down the ramp.
Exactly. Whenever something rolls down an incline, some of the potential energy must be used for rotational kinetic energy instead of translational.
 
ok, thanks for your response. And it is easier to rotate something when the mass is distributed near the center of mass.
 
I could be difficult and say that you may not be making a 'fair' comparison here. Under conditions of no friction, the cylinder wouldn't actually start rolling, would it? :biggrin:
 
Right. You won't be able to roll anything without some friction. And if there's friction, something sliding will be slowed as well.
 
If rotational kinetic energy is the lesson to be communicated, I think a good example is the fact that a solid cylinder will reach the bottom of the incline before a hollow cylinder that has the same mass. The hollow cylinder has more of its mass distributed a greater distance from the center, therefore a greater moment of inertia, therefore greater final rotational KE, therefore less final translational KE.
 
sophiecentaur said:
I could be difficult and say that you may not be making a 'fair' comparison here. Under conditions of no friction, the cylinder wouldn't actually start rolling, would it? :biggrin:
Would the cylinder just slide then.
As long as the friction was low enough but not zero the sliding object would win.
Or maybe we should say that, there would be a point where if the friction was low enough the sliding object would beat the rolling object.
 
With no friction there would be no difference. With high friction , only the cylinder would get there. There would, presumably be a value of coefficient for which they will reach the bottom at the same time.
 
ok that makes sense. thanks for your answer.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K