Rotational Kinetic Energy of sphere

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a physics problem involving the rotational kinetic energy of a solid sphere rolling up an incline. The total kinetic energy at the bottom is calculated to be 70 J, combining both rotational and translational components. When determining how far the sphere travels up the incline, it is found that it reaches a height of 1.43 m, which translates to a distance of 2.86 m along the incline. A key point of contention is whether the mass affects the distance traveled, with participants noting that mass cancels out in the equations, indicating it should not influence the outcome. The conversation emphasizes the importance of treating mass as a variable to avoid confusion in calculations.
latitude
Messages
54
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A solid sphere of mass 4 kg rolls w/o slipping UP an incline with an angle of 30 degrees. the radius of the sphere is 0.5 m and its moment of Inertia is I = 2/5(m)R^2. At the bottom of the incline the center of mass of the sphere has a translational speed of 5 m/s.
a) What is the total kinetic energy of the sphere at the bottom of the incline?
b) How far does the sphere travel up the incline before coming to rest and starting to roll back down?
c) Does the answer to b) depend on the mass?



The Attempt at a Solution



a) K = Krotational + Ktranslational
= 1/2Iw^2 + 1/2mv^2
w = v/R = 5/0.5
= 1/2(2/5)(4)(o.5^2)(10^2) + 1/2(4)(5^2)
= 70 J

b) Kf + Uf = Ki + Ui
0? (Not sure about this, because not sure if there is still some rotational kinetic energy?) + mgh = 70 J + 0J
(5)(9.8)(h) = 70
h = 1.43 m

h = xsin30
1.43 = xsin30
x = 2.86 m

c) So this is where I screw up... because I know from my theory classes that the answer SHOULDNT depend on the mass because all spheres roll down the same regardless of mass... but mine does so I think it's wrong. Thanks everyone!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
b.) When the sphere starts to roll back down, it means that it has lost all its kinetic energy to potential energy

c.) no, because when you do b, you will notice that m cancels out from the equation. Do part b and you will udnerstand.
 
latitude said:
(Not sure about this, because not sure if there is still some rotational kinetic energy?)
Since the sphere is rolling without slipping, if it moves, it has to spin. That's why both the translational movement and rotation stops at the same time.

c) So this is where I screw up... because I know from my theory classes that the answer SHOULDNT depend on the mass because all spheres roll down the same regardless of mass... but mine does so I think it's wrong. Thanks everyone!

How do you know that your answer does depend on the mass? This is what happens if you plug in numerical values early in the problems. As mentioned by Oerg, do it taking m as the mass and see whether it cancels out.
 
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 .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top