Minimum Velocity Required for Loop-The-Loop Problem

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JackFyre
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the minimum velocity required for a particle to successfully complete a loop-the-loop without falling off the track. It explores the application of conservation of energy principles and the role of normal force in maintaining contact with the track.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that the minimum velocity for a particle to complete a loop is slightly more than 2√gr, based on energy conservation principles.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the normal force must be nonzero for the particle to complete the loop, implying a higher minimum velocity than calculated.
  • A participant reiterates that reaching zero kinetic energy at the top of the loop would result in the particle losing contact with the track and following a parabolic trajectory.
  • There is a mention of a scenario involving a bead on a ring, where the normal force can change direction, leading to different dynamics compared to the particle in the loop.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the minimum velocity required, with some suggesting it should be slightly above 2√gr, while others argue that the normal force's role necessitates a higher velocity. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact minimum velocity needed.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the conditions under which the particle maintains contact with the track and the implications of varying normal force on the particle's motion.

JackFyre
Messages
15
Reaction score
7
A question regarding the minimum velocity required by a particle to 'do a loop' without falling-

Assuming the particle has a velocity v before reaching the loop. Then-
KE = mv²/2, at the bottom of the loop.

potential energy at the top-most point of the loop= 2mgr (2r = h)
then, by the law of conservation of energy, mv²/2 = 2mgr, and we get v = 2√gr
in this case, the particle will have zero kinetic energy at the the top of the loop, an will fall, as it has 0 velocity. However, if the initial velocity were slightly higher, say v+Δv, then the particle will have some velocity a the top of the loop.

By this logic, should not the minimum velocity for a particle to safely complete a loop be just a little more than 2√gr ?
unnamed.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In order for the particle to complete the loop, the normal force from the track onto the particle must be nonzero.

Do you see what that implies for the minimum velocity ( and hence kinetic energy ) the particle must have at the top of the loop?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban and JackFyre
JackFyre said:
. . . by the law of conservation of energy, mv²/2 = 2mgr, and we get v = 2√gr
in this case, the particle will have zero kinetic energy at the the top of the loop, an will fall, as it has 0 velocity.
The particle will lose contact with the track before it reaches the top. When that happens, it will describe a parabolic trajectory inside the loop and land on the opposite side of the track. The kinetic energy will never go to zero. Reaching zero KE could be the case if one had a bead on a ring that is constrained to stay on the circle and the normal force is allowed to change direction from radially in to radially out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban
kuruman said:
The particle will lose contact with the track before it reaches the top. When that happens, it will describe a parabolic trajectory inside the loop and land on the opposite side of the track. The kinetic energy will never go to zero. Reaching zero KE could be the case if one had a bead on a ring that is constrained to stay on the circle and the normal force is allowed to change direction from radially in to radially out.
Thanks, that clears it up!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
30K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
12K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K