Rotational Dynamics of a ring of mass

AI Thread Summary
A hollow ring of mass 2.30 kg rolls up an inclined plane at an angle of 38.0° with an initial speed of 3.00 m/s. The discussion focuses on using conservation of energy to determine how far the ring travels up the incline before rolling back down. Key equations include the kinetic energy of rotation and translation, as well as gravitational potential energy, with the moment of inertia correctly identified as I=0.5*m(Rinner^2 + Router^2). Participants clarify the need to account for the angle when calculating height, confirming that the height should be derived from the incline distance using the sine of the angle. Ultimately, the correct approach emphasizes that energy conservation leads to the relationship between kinetic and potential energy without needing the initial position value.
mizzpink
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A ring (hollow cylinder) of mass 2.30 kg, inner radius 4.35 cm, and outer radius 5.65 cm rolls (without slipping) up an inclined plane that makes an angle of θ=38.0°, as shown in the figure attached.

At the moment the ring is at position x = 1.95 m up the plane, its speed is 3.00 m/s. The ring continues up the plane for some additional distance and then rolls back down. It does not roll off the top end. How much further up the plane does it go?


Homework Equations



Krot=1/2Iw^2 where I is moment of inertia [I=mr^2]
Kcm=1/2mv^2 where v is the speed of the centre of mass
Ug=Mgh
w=rv [using the outer radius?]
I think the moment of inertia should be I=1/2m(Rinner^2 + Router^2) since it is a hollow cylinder.

The Attempt at a Solution



I used the conservation of energy to formulate: Krot + Kcm + Ug = Ug

Where the left side is at position x and the right side is at the new position that we want to find.

so the height on the right side is what is needed to find and from that we get how far it has moved from position x and then subtract it from x to get the difference.


I think I am approaching the question correctly but there may be some where I am going wrong and I have tried this 3 times already only to get 3 different answers that are all wrong. Thank you very much for your help in advance.
 

Attachments

  • Figure.jpg
    Figure.jpg
    9.6 KB · Views: 744
Physics news on Phys.org
As far as I think you are quite right in your approach. Just check if the rotational inertia you have taken is
I =0.5*M(R12+R22)
Here R1 and R2 are inner and outer radii resp.
 
aniketp said:
As far as I think you are quite right in your approach. Just check if the rotational inertia you have taken is
I =0.5*M(R12+R22)
Here R1 and R2 are inner and outer radii resp.

I am sure that is the correct formula since I looked it up. The only problem is if I am using the angle correctly. I think that I am using the angle wrong. For Ug, the height h should it be what x is or I should include the angle since x is the hypotenuse. So the height should actually be 1.95sin38. Is that correct? Where else would I use the angle?
 
For a change in distance along the incline = x, there is a corresponding change in height h = x sin(theta).

In order to comment on your answers, we need to see exactly what you did.

(Hint: Express the total KE in terms of translational speed.)
 
mizzpink said:
I am sure that is the correct formula since I looked it up. The only problem is if I am using the angle correctly. I think that I am using the angle wrong. For Ug, the height h should it be what x is or I should include the angle since x is the hypotenuse. So the height should actually be 1.95sin38. Is that correct? Where else would I use the angle?

I think the angle would figure only in the gravitational potential energy since the velocity is given in the direction of the inclination.
 
Never mind I got it myself. I was wrong in the very beginning.

The formula should be Krot+Kcm=Ug. Since energy is conserved meaning that final energy minus initial energy is zero in other words final=initial.

The final is the graviatational potential energy since it is stopped and at a high point above the ground and there is no motion at that point. The initial energy is all motion so it is the total kinetic energy which is rotational KE plus translational KE.

You don't need the x-value at all. I also had the formula for angular speed wrong. It should be w=v/r where r is the outer radius.

Thank you for your help everyone.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top