Solving a Cute Problem: Rubber Band on a Frictionless Cone

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem involving a rubber band on a frictionless cone, specifically focusing on determining the radius of the rubber band at equilibrium when it is gently slid down the cone. The problem incorporates concepts from mechanics, including forces acting on the rubber band, the effects of gravity, and the application of Hooke's Law.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the equilibrium radius will be very close to the unstretched radius r, attributing this to the negligible mass of the rubber band and the gravitational force acting on it.
  • Others argue that the properties of the rubber band, such as its spring constant k, could significantly affect the equilibrium position, suggesting that a closed form solution should depend on the parameters given.
  • A participant presents a formula for the equilibrium radius, R = r + [gm/(4k)]*Cot(theta), asserting confidence in its correctness while inviting others to share their results.
  • Another participant provides a different expression, r - r_0 = mg/(kπ²tan(θ)), derived from a free body diagram of half the rubber band.
  • There is a challenge regarding the application of potential energy changes due to gravity and spring energy changes, with some participants questioning the assumptions made about equilibrium positions and potential energy minima.
  • One participant suggests exploring the oscillation frequency of the rubber band when displaced slightly, indicating a further area of inquiry related to the problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the equilibrium radius and the application of physical principles, with no consensus reached on the correct formula or approach. Multiple competing models and interpretations of the problem remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of considering the effects of gravity and the spring constant, as well as the geometric implications of the cone's shape. There are unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions regarding the equilibrium position and potential energy considerations.

homology
Messages
305
Reaction score
1
Here's a cute problem I came across recently.

Suppose you have a rubber band with spring constant k, mass m and unstretched radius r. Now suppose you have a frictionless cone and the angle of the peak is [itex]2 \theta[/itex] (that is, if you project the shape of the cone onto a plane it looks like a triangle and the top angle is [itex]2 \theta[/itex]. If you were to gently slide the rubber band down the cone (so it doesn't have any appreciable momentum, but you're not forcing it either) it will come to rest at some point on the cone where it will be at equilibrium (we're assuming that the cone is big enough so the rubber band doesn't go all the way to the bottom). What is the radius of the rubber band at this point of equilibrium?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would expect that it will be very close to r. My reasoning is that the mass of the rubber band is almost negligible and it is the gravitational force F=mg that must be equal to the force of the spring. I've been taught in general that F_spring=kx, but this equation will not hold here simply for geometric reasons.
 
Well I haven't told you anything specific about the rubberband. Perhaps this is my very dense rubberband with a very small k. The idea is that you can get a closed form solution dependent only on the given parameters.
 
homology said:
Here's a cute problem I came across recently.

Suppose you have a rubber band with spring constant k, mass m and unstretched radius r. Now suppose you have a frictionless cone and the angle of the peak is [itex]2 \theta[/itex] (that is, if you project the shape of the cone onto a plane it looks like a triangle and the top angle is [itex]2 \theta[/itex]. If you were to gently slide the rubber band down the cone (so it doesn't have any appreciable momentum, but you're not forcing it either) it will come to rest at some point on the cone where it will be at equilibrium (we're assuming that the cone is big enough so the rubber band doesn't go all the way to the bottom). What is the radius of the rubber band at this point of equilibrium?
Draw a free body diagram of one half of the rubber band and...
 
Fairly easy problem. Is there any friction?
 
The OP states that there is no friction, can we also asume no gravity? If there's no gravity, and "you're not forcing it either", then the rubber band comes to rest at r, yes?
 
Answer

Of course Lurch is right for the trivial case of no gravity, but assuming there is gravity I got the answer to be:

R = r + [gm/(4k)]*Cot(theta)

I am pretty sure this is right, but did someone else get something different.
You have to be careful applying Hooke's Law. Circular symmetry causes force components in the rubberband to cancel, which introduces a sine in the integral equation:

dF = 2k(r-R)Sin(theta)*Int[Sin(psi/2)*dpsi,0,2pi]*r-hat.

this just has to be set equal to the gravity component:

dF = gCos(theta)*Int[dm,0,M]

Who's up for solving the oscillatory analog for appreciable momentum?
Append the question to read:
A rubberband is dropped from the tip of a cone with radius R1 and frictional coefficient u...et. al.
find the location (y), speed (y'), and acceleration (y'') for a given time t.
I doubt there will be an accessible closed form solution but setting up the DE should be challenging enough (unless you use a Langrangian).
 
I get [itex]r-r_0=\frac{mg}{k\pi^2\tan\theta}[/itex], using the FBD
for half the rubber band.
 
Last edited:
[itex]r-r_0=\frac{mg}{2k\pi^2\sin\theta}[/itex]

using potential energy change due to gravity = spring energy change
 
Last edited:
  • #10
regor60 said:
[itex]r-r_0=\frac{mg}{2k\pi^2\sin\theta}[/itex]

using potential energy change due to gravity = spring energy change
"Change" from the unstretched position? Since the unstretched position is not the equilibrium position (where the PE is at a local minimum), neither will this new position be - they are merely equipotential positions.

Since the PE is parabolic, if this calculation is correct, the equilibrium position would lie midway between these 2 positions.

PS: But I get [itex]~r-r_0=\frac{mg}{4\pi^2k\tan\theta}[/itex]
 
Last edited:
  • #11
as an exercise... what is the oscillation frequency when the rubber is displaced slightly?:biggrin:
 
  • #12
Great problem! I get the same answer for the equilibrium position as Gokul. For the oscillation period of small displacements, I get:

[itex]T = \cot\theta\sqrt{m/k}[/itex]
 

Similar threads

Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K