Rigid body rotation about a moving axis

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concepts of rolling motion, particularly a sphere rolling up a frictionless incline. Participants express confusion over the relationship between kinetic energy (KE) linear and KE rotational when friction is absent. It is clarified that without friction, the sphere maintains its rotational motion due to the conservation of angular momentum, while gravity affects its linear motion. The point of contact remains at rest during rolling without sliding, but if friction is removed, the sphere will slide, indicating a change in motion dynamics. Overall, the key takeaway is that friction plays a crucial role in maintaining the sphere's rotational state as it moves up the incline.
Stevo6754
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Note this is physics I

This should be the right section as this is not homework..

Ok I'm having trouble understanding the concepts of rolling without friction, kinetic energy linear and kinetic energy rotational. I have a hard time following my professor in class and usually like to go over the notes we took but I've come to a example he did that I cannot understand. I uploaded pictures of my notes to make is easier on me and you.

As you can see its pretty much a sphere rolling up a friction incline plane, had to find the distance it rolled up the plane. That was no problem, calculations for that are on the right side of the page. Did U initial = zero and K final = 0; solved with no problem.

Now on the bottom left part of the page he asks what if the inclined plane was frictionless?
I don't understand where he got that KE rotation for KE final was not zero. He also states that if there is no kinetic friction force, each point of contact does not slide.

In the example where he takes away the friction on the incline. For his total change of KE he now leaves k final but only the k rotational part and not the k linear part. Why is this, I am very confused. Also if there is no friction wouldn't the object be sliding?

Thanks in advance
 

Attachments

  • IMAG0041.jpg
    IMAG0041.jpg
    28.3 KB · Views: 802
  • IMAG0042.jpg
    IMAG0042.jpg
    29.2 KB · Views: 618
  • IMAG0044.jpg
    IMAG0044.jpg
    20.4 KB · Views: 610
Physics news on Phys.org
First part.
I think the professor assumes that the inclined plane has no friction, so the rotational motion will never be changed. Initial condition determines the rotational KE, so final KE rotation is not zero.

The second part.
It can be seen the linear KE is related with the motion of the center of mass. The linear KE is changed due to the gravitational force which transform it into potential energy.

Hope my answer is conceivable. My first time here to answer questions and I am happy about it. :)
 
Stevo6754 said:
Note this is physics I

This should be the right section as this is not homework..

Ok I'm having trouble understanding the concepts of rolling without friction, kinetic energy linear and kinetic energy rotational. I have a hard time following my professor in class and usually like to go over the notes we took but I've come to a example he did that I cannot understand. I uploaded pictures of my notes to make is easier on me and you.

As you can see its pretty much a sphere rolling up a friction incline plane, had to find the distance it rolled up the plane. That was no problem, calculations for that are on the right side of the page. Did U initial = zero and K final = 0; solved with no problem.

Now on the bottom left part of the page he asks what if the inclined plane was frictionless?
I don't understand where he got that KE rotation for KE final was not zero. He also states that if there is no kinetic friction force, each point of contact does not slide.
One of the confusing things about rolling motion is that the point of contact is instantaneously at rest. So when the sphere is rolling w/o sliding (and changing velocity) the frictional force acting on the sphere is static friction. Only if the point of contact slides then the (smaller) kinetic (or dynamic) friction replaces static friction.
In absence of friction there is no way of changing the angular momentum of the sphere so it keeps rolling as it goes up the incline. The only force slowing down the sphere is the component of gravity parallel to the incline, it exerts no torque so it can only slow down the velocity of the center of mass but not rotation around it.
In the example where he takes away the friction on the incline. For his total change of KE he now leaves k final but only the k rotational part and not the k linear part. Why is this, I am very confused. Also if there is no friction wouldn't the object be sliding?

Thanks in advance
Yes the object will slide, meaning that the point of contact will not be at rest.

Please ask more if this or more is unclear
 
dgOnPhys said:
One of the confusing things about rolling motion is that the point of contact is instantaneously at rest. So when the sphere is rolling w/o sliding (and changing velocity) the frictional force acting on the sphere is static friction. Only if the point of contact slides then the (smaller) kinetic (or dynamic) friction replaces static friction.
In absence of friction there is no way of changing the angular momentum of the sphere so it keeps rolling as it goes up the incline. The only force slowing down the sphere is the component of gravity parallel to the incline, it exerts no torque so it can only slow down the velocity of the center of mass but not rotation around it.

Yes the object will slide, meaning that the point of contact will not be at rest.

Please ask more if this or more is unclear

ah ok so that's where the KE rotation came from, thank you both for clearing this up.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top