Rotational motion of a solid sphere of mass

AI Thread Summary
A solid sphere of mass m rolls down a hemispherical cup and the discussion centers on calculating the normal force at the bottom. The normal force is equal and opposite to the weight of the sphere, which is m*g, acting upwards. Clarification is made that the rim of the cup is horizontal, while the bottom's tangent plane is also horizontal. Participants note that this problem resembles a typical homework question. The conversation emphasizes understanding the forces acting on the sphere in rotational motion.
kaka01
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
A solid sphere of mass m is released from rest from the rim of a hemispherical cup so that it rolls along the surface. If the rim of the hemisphere is kept horizontal, find the normal force exerted by the cup on the ball when the ball reaches the bottom of the cup.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This sounds suspiciously like a homework question... anyway, the bottom of the cup is horizontal so the normal force must be equal and opposite to the weight of the ball, ie. acting upwards and of magnitude m*g.
 
MikeyW said:
This sounds suspiciously like a homework question...
Yep. It belongs in the Intro Physics forum.
anyway, the bottom of the cup is horizontal
No, the rim of the cup is kept horizontal.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so the tangent plane to the bottom of the cup is horizontal?
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Rolling balls with different rotational inertia
Replies
14
Views
2K
B Rolling of non-deforming sphere on a non-deforming rough surface?
Replies
4
Views
2K
B Friction on pure rolling non deforming sphere?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Pure rolling of sphere having non uniform mass density ?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Rotating sphere which separates into hemispheres
Replies
9
Views
2K
Calculating the Speed of a Ball Rolling Down a Hill
Replies
12
Views
10K
How Does Mass Affect the Direction of Rotational Motion in a Pulley System?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Hole Drilled into Sphere: Motion?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Rotating Sphere: Conceptual Question
Replies
10
Views
3K
Motion of Sphere Rolling Down Rotating Cone
Replies
9
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top