Optimal Paths: Comparing the Motion of Two Balls on Different Trajectories

  • Thread starter Thread starter Oculatus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Balls
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the motion of two balls, A and B, on different trajectories, questioning which reaches the end faster. While ball A appears to have a shorter path, ball B benefits from gravitational acceleration, potentially increasing its speed. Participants analyze the effects of normal forces and energy conservation, concluding that ball B can achieve a higher horizontal velocity during its descent, allowing it to win the race despite the longer distance. The conversation also touches on the implications of different dip shapes on time differences and the conditions under which ball B maintains contact with the ground. Ultimately, the consensus suggests that ball B finishes first due to its advantageous velocity dynamics.
Oculatus
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I found this picture somewhere:
2193323b9ce9aa7fbea211d2b61f10fb.png


My question being, as in the picture, which ball gets to the end faster? I guess you could naively say that ball A reaches the end in less time, but then again, there is the force of gravity which would accelerate the ball going downwards (and deaccelerate it going upwards, respectively). In essence, the question really might be: does the gravitational pull accelerate the ball to a high enough velocity to compensate for the increased distance? I hope I'm going into the right direction with this, but I certainly lack the mathematical/physical knowledge to solve this (could the conservation of energy be used?).

I'd appreciate any input.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you visualize roughly what the velocity vs time graph would look like for B as it goes down the trough and then comes back up?
 
Oculatus said:
I found this picture somewhere:
2193323b9ce9aa7fbea211d2b61f10fb.png


My question being, as in the picture, which ball gets to the end faster? I guess you could naively say that ball A reaches the end in less time, but then again, there is the force of gravity which would accelerate the ball going downwards (and deaccelerate it going upwards, respectively). In essence, the question really might be: does the gravitational pull accelerate the ball to a high enough velocity to compensate for the increased distance? I hope I'm going into the right direction with this, but I certainly lack the mathematical/physical knowledge to solve this (could the conservation of energy be used?).

I'd appreciate any input.

I used to think it was obvious -- ball B has a higher average velocity, since its velocity is always greater than or equal to ball A. But on the other hand, ball B has to travel farther. Hmm.

So try picking a couple simple dip geometries to calculate the time it takes for the ball to make it across. Show us your calcs -- we are all interested in the correct answer... :smile:
 
berkeman said:
I used to think it was obvious -- ball B has a higher average velocity, since its velocity is always greater than or equal to ball A. But on the other hand, ball B has to travel farther. Hmm.

I figured that the increase in distance traveled is a linear function of the depth of the dip, as is the increase in the ball's energy as it drops that distance. Speed goes as the square root of kinetic energy, so the distance traveled should increase more rapidly than the speed and A wins the race.
 
The question is, can the horizontal component of the velocity vh ever become smaller than v0?
The only force that can reduce vh is the normal force. On a down-slope the horizontal component of the normal force points forward, so vh can only increase. If the hole was symmetrical, we would now be done, because vh on the up-slope would have to be the same as on the corresponding point on the down-slope, so vh >= v0 everywhere.

It seems possible to think of a real steep up-slope, that could reduce vh[/SUB to smaller than v0, but if that happens, the vertical component of the velocity would become so large that the ball would jump up above the starting level.
 
Is there anything changing the horizontal component of either of the balls' velocites?

Unless there is, it looks like a tie, to me.
 
bahamagreen said:
Is there anything changing the horizontal component of either of the balls' velocites?
You don't think that ball B will have a higher horizontal velocity than V0 at the bottom of the dent? See willem's post.
 
bahamagreen said:
Is there anything changing the horizontal component of either of the balls' velocites?

Unless there is, it looks like a tie, to me.

Yes there is, it is a component of the normal force (it is normal to the surface orientation and not normal to horizontal velocity) from the cavity surface that increases horizontal component v_{h_B} to a velocity v_{hmax}>v_0. That is during the descent of ball B. During the ascend we have again the component of the normal force that decreases the horizontal velocity from v_{hmax} back to v_0.

The total horizontal displacement is the same for both cases but because ball B has a time interval where its horizontal velocity is bigger than v_0, ball B wins the race.
 
Last edited:
I do not like the tie, as that would imply that a deeper hole will still end up in a tie, yet gravity is limited and a slightly deeper hole will clearly slow B regarding to A.
 
  • #10
Lok said:
I do not like the tie, as that would imply that a deeper hole will still end up in a tie, yet gravity is limited and a slightly deeper hole will clearly slow B regarding to A.

There's a limit to how deep the hole can become without the ball B losing the contact with the ground. As long as the normal force points upwards it will also point forward on the down-slope, and the horizontal velocity can only increase. If the normal velocity points downwards, the horizontal velocity could decrease, but this can only happen if ball B can't leave the ground. (if it's in a tunnel for example). If the horizontal velocity of ball B can't decrease, ball B can never be slower than ball A.
 
  • #11
On a better thought this problem can have 2 solutions (if the never breaks contact statement holds) affected by the "ratio" of vo and g.

A very low speed with normal g will favor B.

A very high speed with normal g will favor A. As the hole will act as a bump (never breaks contact).
 
  • #12
Lok said:
A very high speed with normal g will favor A. As the hole will act as a bump (never breaks contact).
"Act as a bump" is not a explanation. You have to justify this using forces that act to reduce the horizontal veloctiy of B.
 
  • #13
A.T. said:
"Act as a bump" is not a explanation. You have to justify this using forces that act to reduce the horizontal veloctiy of B.

As willem2 said above, at high speed (or very low g) ball B would lose contact to the ground, yet having a "does not break contact" constrain that does not necessarily imply a relationship between gravity and speed the hole would only act to create a bigger path.

While I know this is not the scope of the problem, it is there.
 
  • #14
Lok said:
As willem2 said above, at high speed (or very low g) ball B would lose contact to the ground, yet having a "does not break contact" constrain that does not necessarily imply a relationship between gravity and speed the hole would only act to create a bigger path.

While I know this is not the scope of the problem, it is there.

As I read the picture, the balls are rolling on the surface of the ground. Accordingly, the normal force can never be negative. Together with the "does not break contact" constraint, this limits the set of possible paths and starting velocities and limits them differently depending on gravity.

Unstated, however, is an important assumption that the balls roll without slipping.

Edit: My mistake on the rolling without slipping. "Negligible friction" covers this.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
jbriggs444 said:
As I read the picture, the balls are rolling on the surface of the ground. Accordingly, the normal force can never be negative. Together with the "does not break contact" constraint, this limits the set of possible paths and starting velocities and limits them differently depending on gravity.
That's how I understand it too. The assumption that B never breaks contact doesn’t imply an actual mechanical constraint that prevents that. It just limits the cases to be considered. And in these cases A can never be faster.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
jbriggs444 said:
Unstated, however, is an important assumption that the balls roll without slipping.

Edit: My mistake on the rolling without slipping. "Negligible friction" covers this.
It's kind of tangential to the problem, but I think rolling without slipping is the opposite case from negligible friction. Otherwise, should the ball start rolling faster when it accelerates in translation? It could just continue rotating at whatever rate while also sliding along the slope.
 
  • #17
Er are we talking for ways that the horizontal velocity of B can become smaller than v_0? The only way for this to happen is that the normal force is negative (i.e pointing towards the ground) which simply cannot happen, not in this case.
 
  • #18
Delta² said:
Yes there is, it is a component of the normal force (it is normal to the surface orientation and not normal to horizontal velocity) from the cavity surface that increases horizontal component v_{h_B} to a velocity v_{hmax}>v_0. That is during the descent of ball B. During the ascend we have again the component of the normal force that decreases the horizontal velocity from v_{hmax} back to v_0.

The total horizontal displacement is the same for both cases but because ball B has a time interval where its horizontal velocity is bigger than v_0, ball B wins the race.

If I drive a car off a cliff, the horizontal component of motion remains constant.

But, if I roll the car down a long flat incline, it will increase... because a normal force is present.

I think I see that...

So, since the horizontal component of the distance is the same for both balls, but it is ball B that spends part of its travel in the segment of the dip, within which its horizontal component velocity is always greater than ball A (because ball B's entry speed into the dip equals its exit speed, but is above Vo throughout the dip)... so ball B advances over ball A as B enters the dip and maintains the advantage it holds when exiting the dip to the end, finishing before ball A.
 
  • #19
Let's simplify this. Say ##V_0## is very close to zero. What happens then?
 
  • #20
bahamagreen said:
If I drive a car off a cliff, the horizontal component of motion remains constant.

But, if I roll the car down a long flat incline, it will increase... because a normal force is present.

I think I see that...

So, since the horizontal component of the distance is the same for both balls, but it is ball B that spends part of its travel in the segment of the dip, within which its horizontal component velocity is always greater than ball A (because ball B's entry speed into the dip equals its exit speed, but is above Vo throughout the dip)... so ball B advances over ball A as B enters the dip and maintains the advantage it holds when exiting the dip to the end, finishing before ball A.
Yes, this is the critical observation: that during ascent the horizontal component cannot increase, yet on completing the ascent it must be back at Vo.

Here are some more interesting questions:
What shapes of dip (a) minimise, (b) maximise the time difference?
 
  • #21
haruspex said:
Yes, this is the critical observation: that during ascent the horizontal component cannot increase

How is that so?

At a deepest point of the track, the entire velocity must be horizontal. If the deepest point is below the starting point, conservation of energy implies that the horizontal velocity is greater (greatest?) at the deepest point.
 
  • #23
... and we can always go to a low ##V_0## by choosing a reference frame ...
 
  • #24
A.T. said:
For low V0 and low inertial moments of the ball, it becomes the brachistochrone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve

Why does ##V_0## need to be low? As long as the ball stays in contact with the ground, ##V_0## shouldn't matter right?
 
  • #25
voko said:
How is that so?

At a deepest point of the track, the entire velocity must be horizontal. If the deepest point is below the starting point, conservation of energy implies that the horizontal velocity is greater (greatest?) at the deepest point.
That accords with my statement. Maybe you misread it.
 
  • #26
A.T. said:
For low V0 and low inertial moments of the ball, it becomes the brachistochrone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve
No, that's the catch. The standard brachistochrone problem is in the context of, say, bead on a wire. In the present context there's only gravity to maintain contact. The initial descent cannot be steeper than the ballistic path.
 
  • #27
One thing that I noticed:

If I start from the energy equation without rotation:
$$\frac{1}{2}mv^2 + mgy = \frac{1}{2}mv_0^2$$
then after some manipulation I get
$$\ddot{x} = -\dfrac{\dot{y}}{\dot{x}} (g + \ddot{y}).$$
Since ##\ddot{y} \ge -g,## it follows that ##\ddot{x} \ge 0,## with equality in the case of the ballistic trajectory ##(\ddot{y} = -g).##

If I include rotation, however, say for a hollow sphere:
$$
\frac{1}{3}mv^2 + \frac{1}{2}mv^2 + mgy
= \frac{5}{6}mv^2 + mgy = \frac{5}{6}mv_0^2,
$$
then I get
$$\ddot{x} = -\dfrac{\dot{y}}{\dot{x}} \left(\frac{3}{5}g + \ddot{y} \right).$$
Now for ##\ddot{y} = -g,## the expression in the second parentheses is negative, implying that ##\ddot{x} < 0##.

Am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
  • #28
olivermsun said:
##
\frac{1}{3}mv^2 + \frac{1}{2}mv^2 + mgy = \frac{5}{6}mv^2 + mgy = \frac{1}{2}mv_0^2
##
##
= \frac 56 mv_0^2
##?
 
  • #29
haruspex said:
##
= \frac 56 mv_0^2
##?
Thanks for catching that. Fixed in post above.
 
  • #30
haruspex said:
That accords with my statement. Maybe you misread it.

Indeed I did. I misread "ascent" as something else :)
 
  • #31
olivermsun said:
then I get
$$\ddot{x} = -\dfrac{\dot{y}}{\dot{x}} \left(\frac{3}{5}g + \ddot{y} \right).$$
Now for ##\ddot{y} = -g,## the expression in the second parentheses is negative, implying that ##\ddot{x} < 0##.
But what do you think ##\ddot{y} = -g## means here? Don't forget you have rolling contact, so a y acceleration implies an angular acceleration. This is not going to be like free fall.
 
  • #32
A.T. said:
For low V0 and low inertial moments of the ball, it becomes the brachistochrone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve

haruspex said:
No, that's the catch. The standard brachistochrone problem is in the context of, say, bead on a wire. In the present context there's only gravity to maintain contact.
Would the standard brachistochrone path between two points on the same elevation ever cause a rolling ball to take off?

haruspex said:
The initial descent cannot be steeper than the ballistic path.
That's why I said low V0. It's the limiting case where the ballistic path would be almost vertically down.
 
  • #33
A.T. said:
Would the standard brachistochrone path between two points on the same elevation ever cause a rolling ball to take off?
In the present case, the ball is initially moving horizontally. The usual brachistochrone solution (a cycloid) starts steeply downwards. Yes, the ball would take off.
And I'm not interested in the limiting case, where the initially velocity is effectively zero.
 
  • #34
voko said:
... and we can always go to a low ##V_0## by choosing a reference frame ...

ZetaOfThree said:
Why does ##V_0## need to be low? As long as the ball stays in contact with the ground, ##V_0## shouldn't matter right?

The standard brachistochrone assumes ##V_0## = 0. If that is not the case, you probably get a different cycloid.

Also, if we demand that B starts out horizontally, like shown on the picture, keeping contact during transition to downslope requires low ##V_0##.
 
  • #35
Oculatus said:
My question being, as in the picture, which ball gets to the end faster?

Ball A, of course. Ball B will loose as much speed going up as it gained going down, and then it is left to travel over greater distance. But more distance also means more friction, so if you push them with sufficiently small speed ball B could end up in the ditch and never finish the race, or it could manage to get out but still stop short of reaching the goal.

Speed bump with the same shape upwards would produce the same result, it doesn't slow down much if the ball manages to pass on the other side, but it makes for a greater distance the ball has to travel over.
 
  • #36
A.T. said:
The standard brachistochrone assumes ##V_0## = 0. If that is not the case, you probably get a different cycloid.

Also, if we demand that B starts out horizontally, like shown on the picture, keeping contact during transition to downslope requires low ##V_0##.
No, it's just that the value of Vo sets a limit on how quickly the slope can curve downwards.
 
  • #37
If we switch to a reference frame where ##V_0 = 0 ##, we have a classical brachistochrone setup in that frame. The question is, is the duration of motion along the brachistochrone from zero velocity to zero velocity finite?

If it is infinite, it will will be infinite for any other curve.
 
  • #38
haruspex said:
But what do you think ##\ddot{y} = -g## means here? Don't forget you have rolling contact, so a y acceleration implies an angular acceleration. This is not going to be like free fall.
Ah good point. I was trying to imagine what were the implications of the maximal "falling" path with rotation. So the "contact" condition ensures that ##\ddot{y} = -g## has the greatest magnitude for ##\ddot{x} = 0##, hence the part in the parenthesis is identically zero and we get the expected behavior.

I suppose this can be seen more easily if you change the frame so that ##v_0 = 0##.

Cool.
 
  • #39
voko said:
If we switch to a reference frame where ##V_0 = 0 ##, we have a classical brachistochrone setup in that frame. The question is, is the duration of motion along the brachistochrone from zero velocity to zero velocity finite?

If it is infinite, it will will be infinite for any other curve.
Switching reference frame cannot suddenly make it adhere to a cycloid! If a ball sits on a level surface of a block at the top of a ramped edge, and I snatch the block away, the ball will not stay in contact with the ramp as it falls.
 
  • #40
pleco said:
Ball A, of course. Ball B will loose as much speed going up as it gained going down, and then it is left to travel over greater distance. But more distance also means more friction, so if you push them with sufficiently small speed ball B could end up in the ditch and never finish the race, or it could manage to get out but still stop short of reaching the goal.

Speed bump with the same shape upwards would produce the same result, it doesn't slow down much if the ball manages to pass on the other side, but it makes for a greater distance the ball has to travel over.

No, it's ball B. As noted by Delta2, while going through the dip ball B will have an increased horizontal component of velocity, but only has the same horizontal distance to cover.
You should ignore friction for this problem.
Going over a speed bump instead would make it take longer, since its horizontal speed would be reduced.
 
  • #41
haruspex said:
Switching reference frame cannot suddenly make it adhere to a cycloid!

I am not sure what this "it" is. My reasoning is that if the unrestricted brachistochrone time is infinite, certainly any other time will also be infinite. Which, if true, settles the issue immediately in my opinion.

If it is finite, then one would need to check whether an inverted cycloid is a possible gravity-only track for a ball to draw further conclusions.
 
  • #42
haruspex said:
No, it's ball B. As noted by Delta2, while going through the dip ball B will have an increased horizontal component of velocity, but only has the same horizontal distance to cover.
You should ignore friction for this problem.
Going over a speed bump instead would make it take longer, since its horizontal speed would be reduced.

I'm not sure if surface decline and incline is valid example without friction. In any case the problem seems to be more complex than that or what I thought. I see now all three possible outcomes, depending on the angle and horizontal distance between the decline and incline. Here is an example where they reach the finish line in the same time:t= 0
--- start
A: x= 0, v= 1
B: x= 0, y= 0, v= 1 t= 10 seconds
-- B begins acceleration
A: x= 10, v= 1
B: x= 10, y=0, v= 1, a= 10t= 15 seconds
-- B ends acceleration
-- B begins deceleration
A: x= 15, v= 1
B: x= 15, y= 127, v= 51, a= -10t= 20 seconds
-- B ends deceleration
A: x= 20, v= 1
B: x= 20, y=0, v= 1If during acceleration phase ball B travels in horizontal direction less distance than ball A, and if deceleration phase begins right after acceleration, then ball A would win. Which I admit looks like an extreme case example, so for a ditch as illustrated in the OP you would be right and ball B would win after all.
 
  • #43
voko said:
I am not sure what this "it" is. My reasoning is that if the unrestricted brachistochrone time is infinite, certainly any other time will also be infinite. Which, if true, settles the issue immediately in my opinion.
I don't see how the time is going to be unbounded. Take the width of the dip and the initial speed as givens, W, V, both > 0. Under the constraints that:
- the particle/ball stays in contact without the normal force going negative, and
- the dip is entirely below the horizontal
we have already seen that the time in the dip is always less than W/V.
One of my questions was the minimum time to cross the dip.
My other question I need to rephrase: of those dips for which the time is only infinitesimally shorter than W/V, what's the deepest possible?
If it is finite, then one would need to check whether an inverted cycloid is a possible gravity-only track for a ball to draw further conclusions.
As I keep pointing out, it is not possible for the path to consist of an inverted cycloid. The gradient near the ends of the dip must approach zero. A cycloid cannot do that. It is of course possible that part of the curve is a cycloid, but you have to negotiate getting into a descent first.
 
  • #44
pleco said:
I'm not sure if surface decline and incline is valid example without friction.
No one said it was real-world. It is very common to presume no friction for the purpose of such exercises, and there's no reason it's invalid to do so in the present problem.
In any case the problem seems to be more complex than that or what I thought. I see now all three possible outcomes, depending on the angle and horizontal distance between the decline and incline. Here is an example where they reach the finish line in the same time:


t= 0
--- start
A: x= 0, v= 1
B: x= 0, y= 0, v= 1


t= 10 seconds
-- B begins acceleration
A: x= 10, v= 1
B: x= 10, y=0, v= 1, a= 10


t= 15 seconds
-- B ends acceleration
-- B begins deceleration
A: x= 15, v= 1
B: x= 15, y= 127, v= 51, a= -10


t= 20 seconds
-- B ends deceleration
A: x= 20, v= 1
B: x= 20, y=0, v= 1


If during acceleration phase ball B travels in horizontal direction less distance than ball A, and if deceleration phase begins right after acceleration, then ball A would win. Which I admit looks like an extreme case example, so for a ditch as illustrated in the OP you would be right and ball B would win after all.
You cannot assume that the numbers you have made up are actual solutions within the constraints of the problem.
There is a clear and convincing reason (see posts by Delta2 and myself) why B is always quicker. Please try to understand it, or find a flaw in it.
 
  • #45
haruspex said:
You cannot assume that the numbers you have made up are actual solutions within the constraints of the problem.

But I didn't make them up, I calculated them. Check it out.


There is a clear and convincing reason (see posts by Delta2 and myself) why B is always quicker. Please try to understand it, or find a flaw in it.

I think this is the argument you are referring to: "The total horizontal displacement is the same for both cases but because ball B has a time interval where its horizontal velocity is bigger than v0, ball B wins the race."

I generally agree, but according to my calculations there can also exist such decline/incline angle where ball B during its acceleration and deceleration will travel less horizontal distance than ball A, and if deceleration phase begins right after acceleration ball A will win. The ditch in this case is deep and 'v' shaped.
 
  • #46
pleco said:
... according to my calculations there can also exist such decline/incline angle where ball B during its acceleration and deceleration will travel less horizontal distance than ball A, and if deceleration phase begins right after acceleration ball A will win. The ditch in this case is deep and 'v' shaped.

Is it exactly 'v' shaped? If so, such a path won't satisfy the condition that the ball doesn't leave the surface.
 
  • #47
pleco said:
But I didn't make them up, I calculated them. Check it out.
Sure, but as olivermsun points out, your model does not fit the constraints of the problem. The ball has to stay in contact with the surface under its own weight. The normal force from the surface can fall to zero, but it must not go negative. In particular, this means that the initial part of the curve must not descend more steeply than the ball would under gravity in a ballistic trajectory.
I think this is the argument you are referring to: "The total horizontal displacement is the same for both cases but because ball B has a time interval where its horizontal velocity is bigger than v0, ball B wins the race."
No, there's more to it than that.
During descent, the normal force can only act in the forward and up directions. The horizontal component of the velocity therefore can increase, but not decrease. So through the entire descent the horizontal component of the velocity must exceed Vo.
During ascent, the normal force can only act in the backward and up directions. The horizontal component of the velocity therefore can decrease, but not increase. Yet, once back at the original level, by conservation of work, it must again be traveling with the original horizontal speed. This means that through the entire ascent the horizontal component of the velocity must exceed Vo.
Thus, the entire time in the dip the horizontal component of the velocity exceeds Vo. Since the horizontal distances are the same, the time taken must be less.
 
  • #48
haruspex said:
Sure, but as olivermsun points out, your model does not fit the constraints of the problem. The ball has to stay in contact with the surface under its own weight.

That looks to me to be a matter of initial velocity. With slow enough horizontal speed, or high enough vertical gravity acceleration, a ball should stay in contact with the surface as long as decline/incline is less steep than completely vertical.


During descent, the normal force can only act in the forward and up directions. The horizontal component of the velocity therefore can increase, but not decrease. So through the entire descent the horizontal component of the velocity must exceed Vo.

I see my mistake. I bent initial velocity to point in the direction of the decline instead of to keep it horizontal.
 
  • #49
pleco said:
With slow enough horizontal speed, or high enough vertical gravity acceleration, a ball should stay in contact with the surface as long as decline/incline is less steep than completely vertical.
No, you have to consider the second derivative too. Even if it only slopes down at 5 degrees, if that's a sudden change from horizontal then the ball will leave the surface, no matter how slow the ball.
 
  • #50
Considering the case ##V_0 = 0 ##.

Assuming potential energy is zero at the initial (and final) point, and ##y## growing downward, conservation of energy yields $$ v = \sqrt {2gy} .$$ The horizontal component of velocity is $$v_x = v \cos n,$$ where ##n## is the angle of the velocity with the horizontal, so $$ \tan n = y'(x), $$ giving $$v_x = {v \over \sqrt {1 + (y')^2}} $$ Assuming further ##x = 0## at the initial point and ##x = a## at the final point, the total time of travel is $$ T= \int\limits_0^a {dx \over v_x} = {1 \over \sqrt {2g}} \int\limits_0^a \sqrt {1 + (y')^2 \over y} dx $$ The integrand does not depend on ##x##, so the Beltrami identity can be employed: $$ \sqrt {1 + (y')^2 \over y} - \frac {y'} {\sqrt y} \frac {y'} {\sqrt {1 + (y')^2} } = {1 \over \sqrt y \sqrt {1 + (y')^2} } = C ,$$ so $$ y' = \sqrt {\frac D y - 1}, $$ which is the differential equation of the inverted cycloid generated by a circle of radius ##D## (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_problem). Thus, $$ T = \sqrt {D \over 2 g} \int\limits_0^a {dx \over y} .$$ A canonical parametrization of the cycloid is $$ x = \frac D 2 (u - \sin u) \\ y = \frac D 2 (1 - \cos u) $$ (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycloid#Area), where ##u## is the angle of rotation of the generating circle. In this problem one full rotation ##u = 2 \pi ## must correspond to horizontal displacement ##a##, so $$ D = {a \over \pi} ,$$ and the total time integral becomes $$ T = \sqrt {a \over 2\pi g} \int \limits_0^{2 \pi} {1 - \cos u \over 1 - \cos u } du = \sqrt {2\pi a \over g} .$$ Thus the minimal time of motion for a particle starting from rest and reaching the same height at a given distance, where minimization is over the set of arbitrary smooth curves, is finite and is realized when the curve is the inverted cycloid specified above.

A question remains, is such a motion realizable when the particle slides freely "on top" of the curve?

$$ v = \sqrt {\dot x^2 + \dot y^2} = \sqrt {1 + (y')^2 } \dot x = \sqrt {D \over y} \dot x= \sqrt {2 g y }, $$ hence $$ \dot x = \sqrt {2g \over D} y, $$ and, using the parametric equations above, $$ (1 - \cos u) \dot u = \sqrt {2g \over D} (1 - \cos u), $$ giving $$ u(t) = \sqrt {2 \pi g \over a} t. $$

Acceleration vector: $$ \ddot x = g \sin \sqrt {2 \pi g \over a} t \\ \ddot y = g \cos \sqrt {2 \pi g \over a} t. $$ The force gravity is ##(0, mg)##, hence the normal force is $$ N_x = mg \sin \sqrt {2 \pi g \over a} t \\ N_y = mg \cos \sqrt {2 \pi g \over a} t - mg. $$ The vertical component is everywhere non-positive, i.e, directed upward, so a cycloidal track does not "pull" the particle downward; the horizontal component is positive during the descent, and negative during the ascent, again as is to be expect from a track that can be "freely slidden upon" by a particle, which I think settles the issue completely for the case ##V_0 = 0 ##.

Turning to ##V_0 \ne 0 ## now. As I said earlier, by introducing a reference frame moving uniformly at ##V_0##, the problem is reduced to the one just dealt with above. To which haruspex (and possibly others) objected, reasoning that an inverted cycloid cannot possibly be a path "freely slidden upon" by a particle whose initial horizontal velocity is not zero, because such a path is vertical initially. That argument is flawed, however, because the inverted cycloid is the minimal time path in the initially comoving frame; in the lab frame where ##V_0 \ne 0##, the minimal time path is the trajectory of the particle following a cycloidal path in the initially comoving frame; that path is not a cycloid per se. Moreover, the width of the dip in the lab frame is not distance ##a## in the initially comoving frame.

Let the width of the dip be ##A##. During time ##T##, the initially comoving frame will cover ##V_0 T##; in the initially comoving frame, the particle will cover ##a##. So, $$ A = V_0 T + a = V_0 T + {g \over 2\pi} T^2 , $$ yielding $$ T = {\pi \over g } \left( -V_0 + \sqrt {V_0^2 + {2 A g \over \pi}} \right) .$$

I hope there are no mistakes in the above, but any corrections are welcome.
 
Back
Top