Launch Ball Highest: Velocity Lost in Arc

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duhvelopment
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Arc Lost Velocity
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on designing a ramp to launch a ball as high as possible, aiming for a maximum height of 120cm without considering friction. The proposed design includes a cane-like shape leading into a half-circle arc, with concerns about energy loss due to the arc's radius. A tighter curve may lead to greater energy loss, while a smoother curve could minimize this issue. The participants are uncertain whether the ball will roll or slide at the launch point, leaning towards the assumption of sliding for simplicity. The importance of maintaining a non-friction surface and avoiding vertical angles at the U-bend to prevent angle-related energy loss is emphasized.
Duhvelopment
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


We're assigned to build a ramp that launches our ball as high as possible. For now we're not taking any friction into account.
Max height: 120cm
Image:
4DmX0mZ.png

http://i.imgur.com/4DmX0mZ.png

Homework Equations


v = g * t
Ep = m x* g * h
Ek = (1/2) * m * v^2

The Attempt at a Solution


We decided that the best way to approach this would be to construct a cane like shape, where the ball wouldn't be exposed to friction and would be essentially in a "free-fall". After that the ball will enter a half-circle like shape, where-after it will launch back into the air under an angle of 90 degrees. We're trying to find the best possible radius of our arc. When we make our arc too small, too much energy will be lost in the movement translation, and when we make the arc too big, the ball will experience a lot more friction so it won't reach the maximum height. We're not asking for exact solutions but more like guidelines and formulas we could use to calculate the equilibrium.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Please explain more your concern about what happens when the arc is small.
Also, when the ball is near the launch point, do you expect it to be rolling or sliding?
 
haruspex said:
Please explain more your concern about what happens when the arc is small.
Also, when the ball is near the launch point, do you expect it to be rolling or sliding?
When the arc is too small, the angle will differentiate at a much faster rate which will result in a bigger energy loss. We're going to try and keep the friction as small as possible by covering our ramp in a non-friction product. We're a bit unsure whether the ball would be rolling or sliding, because there might be enough friction for it to start rolling, but for the sake of simplicity we're assuming that the ball will be sliding.
 
Duhvelopment said:
When the arc is too small, the angle will differentiate at a much faster rate which will result in a bigger energy loss. We're going to try and keep the friction as small as possible by covering our ramp in a non-friction product. We're a bit unsure whether the ball would be rolling or sliding, because there might be enough friction for it to start rolling, but for the sake of simplicity we're assuming that the ball will be sliding.
I don't see why a tighter curve leads to a greater energy loss. Equations? The key is how smooth the curve is.
If the surface is slippery (and short) enough that it does not achieve rolling, that will definitely help.
 
  • Like
Likes Duhvelopment
haruspex said:
I don't see why a tighter curve leads to a greater energy loss. Equations? The key is how smooth the curve is.
If the surface is slippery (and short) enough that it does not achieve rolling, that will definitely help.
Thanks for the reply, I'll get to the equations tomorrow as it's quite late at the moment.
 
haruspex said:
The key is how smooth the curve is.
To expand on that... you have the down ramp as vertical. You don't want to risk the ball hitting the U bend at some angle, so maybe make it not quite vertical.
 
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