Rotational Energy, ball on a loop

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the minimum speed required for a ball to navigate a circular loop after rolling on a level surface. For part A, the derived formula for the minimum speed \( v_0 \) to reach the vertical track is \( v_0 = \sqrt{\frac{2g(R_0-R)}{1+\beta}} \). In part B, the minimum speed to reach the top of the loop is calculated as \( v_0 = 2\sqrt{\frac{g(R_0-R)}{1+\beta}} \). Participants discuss the assumptions made regarding kinetic energy at the top of the loop, emphasizing that the ball must maintain sufficient speed to counteract gravitational forces. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the dynamics at the top of the loop, where centripetal force must equal gravitational force for the ball to stay on the track.
bigguccisosa
Messages
24
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Imagine a ball with moment of inertia I_{cm} = \beta MR^2 encountering a circular loop of radius R_0 > R after rolling on a level surface at a speed of v_0. Assume that the ball does not slip. Attached a diagram.
A) What is the minimum value of v_0 required for the ball to reach the point where the track becomes vertical?
B) What is the minimum value of v_0 required for the ball to reach the top of the track?

Homework Equations


Rotational Kinetic Energy = T = \frac{1}{2}Mv^2 + \frac{1}{2}I\omega^2
Total Mechanical Energy = T + U

The Attempt at a Solution


So I thought I might use energy conservation here, for part A), if the ground is taken to be zero potential energy, there is no speed when the ball just reaches the vertical track, so kinetic energy is zero, and the ball is R_0 above the ground. The centre of the ball starts R above the ground.
MgR_0 = \frac{1}{2}Mv_0^2 + \frac{1}{2}I \omega^2 + MgR
Replacing I and omega, MgR_0 = \frac{1}{2}Mv_0^2 + \frac{1}{2}\beta MR^2\frac{v_0^2}{R^2} + MgR
MgR_0 - MgR = \frac{1}{2}Mv_0^2 + \frac{1}{2}\beta MR^2\frac{v_0^2}{R^2}
Mg(R_0-R) = \frac{1}{2}Mv_0^2(1+\beta)
solving for speed v_0 = \sqrt{\frac{2g(R_0-R)}{1+\beta}}

For part B) did the same thing except put the height at the top of the track to be 2R_0-R,
and I solved for speed again and got v_0 = 2\sqrt{\frac{g(R_0-R)}{1+\beta}}

Is there a way to check if these are correct?, I'm unsure about how I calculated the potential energy, using the centre of mass of the ball? One of my classmates got v_0 = \sqrt{2gr_0 (1+\beta)} for part A instead?
 

Attachments

  • loop.PNG
    loop.PNG
    4.7 KB · Views: 430
Physics news on Phys.org
I agree with your answer for part A.
In part B, you are again assuming no KE at the top. If so, would what would happen next? Does that overall trajectory seem right?
 
Hi haruspex, I assumed zero KE at the top because the question asked for minimum velocity required to reach the top. I suppose right afterward, if there was no kinetic energy at the top, the ball would then drop in a straight line down? I don't see if there is a problem with this
 
bigguccisosa said:
Hi haruspex, I assumed zero KE at the top because the question asked for minimum velocity required to reach the top. I suppose right afterward, if there was no kinetic energy at the top, the ball would then drop in a straight line down? I don't see if there is a problem with this
You wouldn't be surprised to see a ball do that, roll all the way to the top of the arc then drop vertically?
Think about the forces acting on the ball when it is near the top, so, according to your scheme, only moving slowly.
 
Oh man, I just pictured that and that is quite odd :smile:. On second thought, the ball should leave the track but still be moving "forwards", correct? It just doesn't have the velocity to stay on the track anymore. So I suppose the new assumption is that at the top, the kinetic energy must be such that the centripetal force just equals gravity?
 
bigguccisosa said:
Oh man, I just pictured that and that is quite odd :smile:. On second thought, the ball should leave the track but still be moving "forwards", correct? It just doesn't have the velocity to stay on the track anymore. So I suppose the new assumption is that at the top, the kinetic energy must be such that the centripetal force just equals gravity?
Bingo.
 
Thread 'Correct statement about size of wire to produce larger extension'
The answer is (B) but I don't really understand why. Based on formula of Young Modulus: $$x=\frac{FL}{AE}$$ The second wire made of the same material so it means they have same Young Modulus. Larger extension means larger value of ##x## so to get larger value of ##x## we can increase ##F## and ##L## and decrease ##A## I am not sure whether there is change in ##F## for first and second wire so I will just assume ##F## does not change. It leaves (B) and (C) as possible options so why is (C)...

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
39
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K