Theoretical Rotational-Linear Kinetic Energy Ratio of Spherical Projectile

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on determining the theoretical ratio of rotational kinetic energy to linear kinetic energy for a spherical projectile, specifically under conditions of forward spin without the Magnus effect. Participants express uncertainty about establishing a fixed ratio, noting that the projectile's motion could vary widely between pure translation and pure rotation. The conversation highlights the need for additional constraints or parameters to provide a meaningful answer. The inquiry is part of a broader investigation into calculating theoretical values for spin and velocity in a pitching machine setup. Overall, the challenge lies in the complexity of the projectile's motion dynamics.
anmanc
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
For my investigation regarding the aerodynamic forces on a spherical projectile, I really need to know the theoretical ratio of rotational kinetic energy to linear kinetic energy of a spherical projectile (assuming the only spin is forward spin and there is no Magnus effect).

Can someone please help me out?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Why would it be constrained to any particular ratio? It could be translating with no rotation, or it could be rotating with no translation, or any combination of the two. Unless you have additional information which constrains the projectile's motion in some way, this isn't really answerable.
 
I'm not really sure. Thanks for your help, this was just another attempt at finding a method to calculate theoretical values for the rate of spin and velocity of a ball launched out of a pitching machine consisting of two variably rotating wheels.
 
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...
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?
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...
Back
Top