What is the Maximum Height a Rolling Marble Reaches on a Rough Hill?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the maximum height a solid uniform marble reaches when rolling up a rough hill without slipping. The conservation of energy principle is applied, leading to the equation v0^2 = 10gh/7. Participants suggest rearranging this equation to solve for height, emphasizing that the final height should not depend on the initial speed v0. There is confusion regarding the requirement for a specific height in meters, as the computer system rejects answers that include v0. Clarification is sought on whether additional information from the problem statement is missing.
raiderIV
Messages
15
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A solid uniform marble is rolling without slipping when it approaches the base of a hill with a speed v0.

Find the maximum height above the base that this marble will reach if the hill is rough enough to prevent slipping.


Homework Equations


Since there is no slipping I can use the conservation of energy

mgh = .5mv2 + .5Iw2

and i end up with the equation

v02 = 10gh/7


The Attempt at a Solution



I have no idea where to go from here, so if someone might be willing to give me a point in the correct direction, it would be most appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
raiderIV said:

Homework Statement


A solid uniform marble is rolling without slipping when it approaches the base of a hill with a speed v0.

Find the maximum height above the base that this marble will reach if the hill is rough enough to prevent slipping.


Homework Equations


Since there is no slipping I can use the conservation of energy

mgh = .5mv2 + .5Iw2

and i end up with the equation

v02 = 10gh/7


The Attempt at a Solution



I have no idea where to go from here, so if someone might be willing to give me a point in the correct direction, it would be most appreciated.

You seem pretty much done. You equated the final PE with the initial total KE (linear and rotational), and the final PE has the final height in it that you are asked to solve for. Just re-arrange your final equation.


EDIT -- actually I'm not sure I understand your final equation. You can eliminate the I in the initial equation by using the definition of a sphere's I in terms of its mass and radius. It does seem like your final answer will still have variables in it for m, R and Vo.
 
berkeman said:
You seem pretty much done. You equated the final PE with the initial total KE (linear and rotational), and the final PE has the final height in it that you are asked to solve for. Just re-arrange your final equation.EDIT -- actually I'm not sure I understand your final equation. You can eliminate the I in the initial equation by using the definition of a sphere's I in terms of its mass and radius. It does seem like your final answer will still have variables in it for m, R and Vo.
The problem is, that the final solution is asking for a set height in meters. I tried plugging in 9.81 for gravity and solving for h and leaving v0 in there, but to no avail (Its a computer system that i need to input the answers to, and it just tells me that the answer does not use v0 in it). I just don't know if there is someway to find h other than what i am aware of.
 
raiderIV said:
The problem is, that the final solution is asking for a set height in meters. I tried plugging in 9.81 for gravity and solving for h and leaving v0 in there, but to no avail (Its a computer system that i need to input the answers to, and it just tells me that the answer does not use v0 in it). I just don't know if there is someway to find h other than what i am aware of.

The final height will depend on Vo. Right? Maybe not on the mass, but for sure on the Vo. What are you not posting about the original problem statement?
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top