Smooth rolling motion - conservation of energy?

AI Thread Summary
Mechanical energy is conserved for a ball or cylinder rolling smoothly along a path, provided there are no dissipative forces like friction or air resistance. In a closed system with perfect rolling (without slipping), the total mechanical energy remains constant, as static friction does not perform work. The discussion highlights that while static friction is present, it does not contribute to energy loss, allowing for conservation of energy. The relationship between the rolling object and the surface at the contact point is crucial for understanding this phenomenon. Overall, the conservation of mechanical energy holds true under these ideal conditions.
stfz
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Member advised to use the homework template for posts in the homework sections of PF.
This isn't about a specific physics problem, but rather a question:
Given I have a ball or cylinder rolling smoothly along some path, is it generally true that mechanical energy is conserved?
I.e. if ##E_mech = K+U = K_{trans} + K_{rot} + U##, then ##\Delta E_mech = 0##?

I have been able to formulate a proof for a cylinder rolling down an inclined plane, with a change in height ##\Delta h##. I've been able to show that, at the bottom, ##K_{rot}+K_{trans} = mgh##.

But I just wanted to check that this is generally true along any path (e.g. curved paths), given that the rolling is always smooth? And also, are there any caveats here where this assertion doesn't work?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
stfz said:
But I just wanted to check that this is generally true along any path (e.g. curved paths), given that the rolling is always smooth? And also, are there any caveats here where this assertion doesn't work?

The total amount of mechanical energy, in a closed system in the absence of dissipative forces (e.g. friction, air resistance), remains constant.
so, if you have conditons of perfect rolling (without slipping) the energy should be conserved.
 
Hmm. I was under the impression that the static friction present was a friction force and hence the there are non-conservative forces at work.
However, now that you mention it, I realize that static friction, by definition, can do no work. Hence there are no non-conservative forces doing work per se (although there are non-conservative forces present!)

Is that why mechanical energy is conserved?
 
What is the relative motion between the smoothly rolling object and the surface along which it is rolling at the point / line of contact?

The answer to that plus an equation for energy dissipated by static friction between two surfaces should provide you the insight you are looking for.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top