Rigid wheel rolling without slipping -- Trying to find angular acceleration

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the problem of a rigid wheel rolling without slipping and the calculation of its angular acceleration. Participants explore the application of Newton's laws, the role of friction, and the conditions under which the wheel operates, including general planar motion and the forces acting on the wheel.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion over the application of Newton's 2nd law and whether the wheel's motion is general planar motion.
  • There is a suggestion to include the unknown force of friction in the calculations, with some arguing that friction is not present in the problem.
  • One participant claims that the free body diagram (FBD) only includes the normal force, weight, and applied force, while others challenge this by stating that friction is necessary for rolling without slipping.
  • Participants discuss the direction of friction, with conflicting views on whether it should act to the left or right depending on the applied force and the resulting torque.
  • Some participants assert that friction does no work when rolling without slipping, leading to the assumption that it does not affect acceleration, while others argue against this assumption by providing mathematical reasoning involving friction's role in linear and angular acceleration.
  • One participant presents a mathematical analysis comparing scenarios on smooth and rough surfaces, concluding that friction is essential for the motion of the wheel.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the role of friction in the problem. There are multiple competing views regarding its presence, direction, and effect on the wheel's acceleration and angular motion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their assumptions about friction and its effects, particularly in the context of rolling without slipping. The discussion includes unresolved mathematical steps and varying interpretations of the forces involved.

Pipsqueakalchemist
Messages
138
Reaction score
20
Homework Statement
Question below and attempt below
Relevant Equations
Newton’s law
Relative acceleration
So I tried the problem and it’s different from the solution. I’m confused on why my attempt didn’t work, is it because the wheel is undergoing general planar motion? I tried to just apply Newton’s 2nd law to find the acceleration of the centre and then use that to find angular acceleration. The solution uses relative acceleration and moment to solve the problem.
 

Attachments

  • 822D86D2-6011-4E2C-B0DF-6C9C669BA0AA.png
    822D86D2-6011-4E2C-B0DF-6C9C669BA0AA.png
    34.7 KB · Views: 256
  • 904D8832-86AB-4D11-9FB3-23E329ABA1C8.png
    904D8832-86AB-4D11-9FB3-23E329ABA1C8.png
    49.8 KB · Views: 189
  • 80849A8C-1455-49CB-97A6-678E3D8A8599.png
    80849A8C-1455-49CB-97A6-678E3D8A8599.png
    42.6 KB · Views: 219
  • 0F57A4CE-E7A4-4290-A896-92419E66784D.jpeg
    0F57A4CE-E7A4-4290-A896-92419E66784D.jpeg
    63.7 KB · Views: 212
Physics news on Phys.org
Pipsqueakalchemist said:
I tried to just apply Newton’s 2nd law to find the acceleration of the centre and then use that to find angular acceleration. The solution uses relative acceleration and moment to solve the problem.
You have an unknown force of friction at the point of contact. You could try adding that force to your method.
 
PS You should try to learn latex, as your solution is effectively unreadable. For example:
$$ma = F_h - f$$ $$I\alpha = \tau_h + \tau_f - \tau_v$$
Where I'll let you work out the notation I've used as a hint.
 
PeroK said:
You have an unknown force of friction at the point of contact. You could try adding that force to your method.
Friction isn’t present in this problem. The FBD only has the normal force,weight, and the applied force
 
Pipsqueakalchemist said:
Friction isn’t present in this problem. The FBD only has the normal force,weight, and the applied force
Friction force has an infinite value in this problem.
The ring-surface point of contact is actually considered a solid hinge about which all moments are calculated.
The solution does not show that force because it has no lever respect to that hinge, causing no moment or torque about it.
 
Pipsqueakalchemist said:
Friction isn’t present in this problem. The FBD only has the normal force,weight, and the applied force
Well, then, the FBD is wrong! There's an anticlockwise torque on the ring from the applied force, so you'll need friction to get it rolling (clockwise) without slipping. It requires friction to initiate rolling without slipping.
 
Ok I see, but I thought friction isn’t present when it’s rolling without slipping. Isn’t it true that when rolling without slipping friction does no work? So if friction does no work then it doesn’t change the objects velocity so acceleration is equal to zero and its force is zero. That’s how I thought of it. And I’m also confuse about the direction of friction in this question. I see that it should be to the left to make the wheel spin clockwise but i thought that when you have a wheels and say it’s rolling to the right and an force is applied to the wheel that doesn’t pass through the centre of mass and creates an moment like in this question,I thought that friction is what moves the wheel forward so the friction force would be in the same direction of the wheels velocity.
 
Like in these two pictures, the one where friction acts to the left when the force passes through line of action. And I’m the other one friction is to the right when force doesn’t pass through centre of mass and creates an moment. In this question it’s the second case where force applied doesn’t pass through centre so friction should be directed to the right but I see that doesn’t make sense because if friction acts to the right the that's an counterclockwise direction.
 

Attachments

  • 0F79C9EA-0ED5-4A9E-B391-0F0B5FFEB2FA.png
    0F79C9EA-0ED5-4A9E-B391-0F0B5FFEB2FA.png
    30.4 KB · Views: 186
  • E0BDA4BB-DE6B-4C28-A6D1-EF9CF15DB82B.png
    E0BDA4BB-DE6B-4C28-A6D1-EF9CF15DB82B.png
    33.7 KB · Views: 191
Pipsqueakalchemist said:
Ok I see, but I thought friction isn’t present when it’s rolling without slipping. Isn’t it true that when rolling without slipping friction does no work? So if friction does no work then it doesn’t change the objects velocity so acceleration is equal to zero and its force is zero. That’s how I thought of it. And I’m also confuse about the direction of friction in this question. I see that it should be to the left to make the wheel spin clockwise but i thought that when you have a wheels and say it’s rolling to the right and an force is applied to the wheel that doesn’t pass through the centre of mass and creates an moment like in this question,I thought that friction is what moves the wheel forward so the friction force would be in the same direction of the wheels velocity.
Rolling without slipping at constant velocity proceeds without friction. But, acceleration and deceleration require friction - it's hard to accelerate or brake on slippery ice, but not to keep moving.

In this case, the applied force tends to drag the ring across the surface. Friction, in the opposite direction, tends to reduce the acceleration and cause angular acceleration.
 
  • #10
Pipsqueakalchemist said:
Like in these two pictures, the one where friction acts to the left when the force passes through line of action. And I’m the other one friction is to the right when force doesn’t pass through centre of mass and creates an moment. In this question it’s the second case where force applied doesn’t pass through centre so friction should be directed to the right but I see that doesn’t make sense because if friction acts to the right the that's an counterclockwise direction.
In the first diagram, the force applied at the top of the ting tends to over-rotate it. The friction acts to counter this and to increase linear acceleration.

You need to analyse each scenario on its own merits, not jump to general conclusions about the direction of friction.
 
  • #11
PS In any case, you can always include a friction force without knowing its direction: balancing the equation will give you that.
 
  • #12
PeroK said:
In the first diagram, the force applied at the top of the ting tends to over-rotate it. The friction acts to counter this and to increase linear acceleration.

You need to analyse each scenario on its own merits, not jump to general conclusions about the direction of friction.
Ok I see, so my assumption about frictions were wrong
 
  • #13
Pipsqueakalchemist said:
Ok I see, so my assumption about frictions were wrong
You don't need to make assumptions. You have an equation for linear acceleration involving friction, an equation for angular acceleration also involving friction, and, for rolling without slipping, an equation relating linear to angular acceleration. Solving those equations gives you the unknown friction and the linear and angular accelerations for every scenario.

That was your alternative to the book answer in the original post.
 
  • #14
But what about when rolling without slipping. I thought friction does no work when rolling without slipping and if it does no work then it doesn’t change the objects velocity meaning acceleration is zero so friction force equal zero because force = ma. Is there something wrong with my assumption?
 
  • #15
Pipsqueakalchemist said:
But what about when rolling without slipping. I thought friction does no work when rolling without slipping and if it does no work then it doesn’t change the objects velocity meaning acceleration is zero so friction force equal zero because force = ma. Is there something wrong with my assumption?
Do the calculations!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU
  • #16
Pipsqueakalchemist said:
But what about when rolling without slipping. I thought friction does no work when rolling without slipping and if it does no work then it doesn’t change the objects velocity meaning acceleration is zero so friction force equal zero because force = ma. Is there something wrong with my assumption?
Let's consider a ring being pulled by a horizontal force, ##F##, through its centre of gravity a) on a smooth surface and b) on a rough surface, where we have an unknown frictional force ##f##.

In case a) we have simply linear acceleration from ##F = ma## and no rotation.

In case b) we have linear acceleration given by ##F - f = ma## and an angular acceleration given by ##fR = I\alpha##. And, of course, we have ##a = R\alpha##.

We can, therefore, solve for ##f##: $$f(1 + \frac{mR^2}{I}) = F$$ For a ring we have ##I = mR^2##, hence ##f = \frac{F}{2}##, which is definitely not zero.

In fact, it's clear that the frictional force is instrumental is causing some of the linear motion to become rotational motion - if we compare with case a).

The linear acceleration is: $$a = \frac{F}{2m}$$ Now we can check the work done. The linear kinetic energy after moving a distance ##d## is half what we would have in case a): $$KE_l = \frac{Fd}{2}$$ But, we also have rotational KE of $$KE_r = \frac 1 2 I \omega^2 = \frac 1 2 I \frac{v^2}{R^2} =\frac 1 2 mv^2 (\frac{I}{mR^2}) = KE_l$$ And the total kinetic energy (linear plus rotational) is the same as in case a).

In conclusion, the frictional force did no work. But, this absolutely didn't mean that it was zero.

If you do the same calculations for your more complicated problem, then you should get the book answer.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K