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:
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
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?
Back
Top