Speed of objects rolling down slopes

  • Thread starter Thread starter iluvc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rolling Speed
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the speed of objects rolling down slopes, specifically addressing the confusion surrounding the effects of mass and size on rolling speed. While the textbook states that all solid balls, regardless of size, reach the bottom simultaneously, it also notes that a hollow cylinder rolls slower due to its higher rotational inertia. The key point is that the velocity of rolling objects depends on their height and the ratio of their moment of inertia to mass times radius squared (J/mr²), which remains constant for objects of the same shape. This implies that scaling up or changing mass density does not affect the time taken for symmetrical objects to roll down the slope. The conversation also touches on the complexities of different shapes, such as ellipsoids, which may not adhere to the same principles as spheres or cylinders.
iluvc
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I'm a bit confused about the speed of objects rolling down slopes.

In my textbook, it says
"Neither the mass nor the size of the object will affect its speed when rolling downhill." And that solid balls of different masses/sizes will all reach the bottom of the slope together.

And then it goes on to say that because a hollow cylinder has mass far from the centre, it has a large rotational intertia, so gains a larger proportion of rotational Ek, so a smaller proportion of linear Ek, so it will have a slower speed when rolling downhill. Hence a solid ball (smaller I) will reach the bottom of the slope before the hollow cylinder.

My ques is - if rotational inertia is what determines the speed of objects rolling down slopes, won't a larger solid ball have a larger rotational inertia than a smaller solid ball? So a larger solid ball should (by the reasoning above) have a slower speed, so will reach the bottom of the slope AFTER (not at the same time as) a smaller solid ball?

Yet my textbook says "Large or small, light or heavy, all of these solid balls will reach the bottom of the slope together".

Can someone help me clear up my confusion?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's just do the equation and see what we get
Conservation of energy states
\frac12 J\omega^2+\frac12 mv^2+mgh=\text{const}
where the energies are rotational energy, kinetic linear energy and potential energy. J is the moment of inertia around the rolling axis. With v=\omega r this simplifies to
\frac12\left(\frac{J}{mr^2}+1\right)v^2+gh=\text{const}
So the velocity only depends on height and \frac{J}{mr^2}. For bodies with the same shape this expression is the same.
 
Thanks Gerenuk!

But do you mind explaining this:

Gerenuk said:
So the velocity only depends on height and \frac{J}{mr^2}. For bodies with the same shape this expression is the same.

Why's it the same for bodies of the same shape?
 
iluvc said:
Why's it the same for bodies of the same shape?
That's actually not quite a general statement.
At least for object with some degree of symmetry (maybe cylindrical; like spheres or cylinders) it turns out that
J=amr^2 where a is a constant (consider a scaling argument for J=\int r^2\mathrm{d}m). This case is easy.
Basically if an object with cylindrical symmetry (and constant radius) is scaled up or its mass density is changed, the expression J/(mr^2) is invariant.

I'm not sure how much one can generalize this statement.

For rolling ellipsoids one actually has to check all preconditions again. I think all equations are valid again, however r would be the distance from ground to the center of mass which changes as the ellipsoid rotates and also the velocity in v=\omega r is not the velocity of the center of mass projected along the inclination of the ground. And I guess J=amr_\text{avg}^2. So I could image that this equal shape theorem doesn't apply for ellipsoids, but I haven't checked all details.

Maybe someone else can clarify which class of objects reaches the end of the track at the same time.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone is able to prove that a general upscaling of the physical situation gives same time for rolling. But that would also mean that for comparing rolling at one type of slope only, on needs a self-similar slope, i.e. a flat slope.
 
Last edited:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top