Two Toilet Papers dropping-Rotational Inertia

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on a physics problem involving two toilet paper rolls dropped from the same height, one unraveling and the other not. The key equations used include the conservation of energy and rotational inertia, with participants exploring how the unraveling affects potential energy and acceleration. The unraveling roll's final potential energy differs due to its stretching, prompting questions about mass and torque in relation to Newton's laws. After some algebraic manipulation, participants aim to derive the relationship between the two rolls' accelerations and the heights from which they must be dropped to hit the ground simultaneously. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly applying physics principles to solve the problem.
CentrifugalKing
Messages
23
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Okay, so I'm supposed to take two fresh rolls of toilet paper and drop them. One of which, I am supposed to let unravel while falling. The other, I just drop on its own. I'm supposed to find the height at which both will drop and hit the ground at the same time.

Homework Equations


Rotation Inertia for Toilet Papers: I= M (R-R2)^2

Conservation of Energy: KE1 + PE1 = KE2 + PE2

The Attempt at a Solution



I know that

KE1= 0 and PE2 = 0

So

PE1 = KE2

mgh = (1/2) Iw^2 + (1/2)Mv^2

Okay... this was all I wrote. At this point I realized, that I did not know the difference between the two.

What would make the unraveling toilet paper any different from the one that falls?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
CentrifugalKing said:
What would make the unraveling toilet paper any different from the one that falls?
For one thing, the final PE of the unraveling toilet paper will not be zero. It stretches out as it unravels.
 
Oh so it will be

mgh= (1/2)(M)(Rf)((v^2)/(Rf^2)) +Mv^2 + PE?

So what would PE equal? Would the mass change to just one sheet of paper rather than the whole roll?

Or should I also set up Newton's 2nd Law?
 
CentrifugalKing said:
Or should I also set up Newton's 2nd Law?
That's what I would do. See if you can compare the accelerations.
 
Hate to bump this up again, but I've gotten pretty far but got jumbled on one part.

So I did net torque = I(alpha)

And did some substitution

mg*R = (((1/2)(M) (R^2+R2^2) + MR^2))) (a/R)

Thing is, would

R^2+R2^2 be the same as the other R's?

Sorry if I'm not being clear. But how would the formula play out? I know M cancels.
 
CentrifugalKing said:
Hate to bump this up again, but I've gotten pretty far but got jumbled on one part.

So I did net torque = I(alpha)

And did some substitution

mg*R = (((1/2)(M) (R^2+R2^2) + MR^2))) (a/R)
This looks good. Note: R is the outer radius; R2 is the inner radius.

CentrifugalKing said:
Thing is, would

R^2+R2^2 be the same as the other R's?
Not sure what you mean. See my comment above.

The linear acceleration will be in terms of both R and R2.
 
@Doc Al

Thanks for all your help, and I think I got it.

After a bit of Algebra:

(2/3)((g*R^2)/(R^2+R2^2))=a

And the other a=g

Is that all I can do?

And then compare it?
 
CentrifugalKing said:
After a bit of Algebra:

(2/3)((g*R^2)/(R^2+R2^2))=a
I get something slightly different, so double check your algebra.

CentrifugalKing said:
And the other a=g

Is that all I can do?

And then compare it?
Once you have the two accelerations, figure out how the heights they must be dropped from have to relate for them to fall in the same time. (Hint: for a given distance, solve for the time to reach the ground.)
 
Oh,

So I did a bit.

Is this correct?

I brought the R from a/R to the other side.
I wanted to cancel the 1/2 so I multiplied everything by 2.

2gR^2 = (R^2+R2^2+2R^2) a?
 
  • #10
Oh I see my mistake! So this is right?
 

Attachments

  • 20151202_132851.jpg
    20151202_132851.jpg
    27.3 KB · Views: 519
  • #11
CentrifugalKing said:
Oh,

So I did a bit.

Is this correct?

I brought the R from a/R to the other side.
I wanted to cancel the 1/2 so I multiplied everything by 2.

2gR^2 = (R^2+R2^2+2R^2) a?
This looks better. But simplify the expression within the parenthesis a bit--combine terms.
 
  • #12
CentrifugalKing said:
Oh I see my mistake! So this is right?
Looks good.
 
Back
Top