Will the 2 dimensional sphere rotate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PhysicS FAN
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rotate Sphere
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mechanics of a 200kg sphere in contact with two walls, where a force of 400N is applied. The vertical wall has a coefficient of friction (μ) of 0.25, while the horizontal wall has no friction. The consensus is that the sphere will not rotate because the torque generated by the applied force (F) is greater than the torque from the frictional force (T), which is limited by the normal force (N) from the vertical wall. The analysis confirms that the vertical forces do not exceed zero, preventing rotation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of torque and its calculation in rotational dynamics.
  • Knowledge of friction coefficients and their impact on force balance.
  • Familiarity with Newton's laws of motion, particularly force equilibrium.
  • Ability to analyze free body diagrams for complex systems.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of torque in rotational dynamics.
  • Learn about frictional forces and their role in motion analysis.
  • Explore Newton's laws of motion in detail, focusing on force equilibrium.
  • Practice drawing and analyzing free body diagrams for various mechanical systems.
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in physics, mechanical engineers, and anyone interested in understanding the dynamics of rotational motion and force interactions in rigid bodies.

PhysicS FAN
Messages
26
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


A 200kg sphere is in touch with two walls. The horizontal wall has no coefficient of friction and the vertical has μ=0.25. If we apply a force F=400N will the sphere rotate?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution

[/B]
What I can't understand is, if there is balance in the y and x-axis beacuse if so the problem is easily solved. I proved it theoritically but I can not find a mathematical solution. Please help me.
 

Attachments

  • WIN_20190222_14_03_35_Pro (2).jpg
    WIN_20190222_14_03_35_Pro (2).jpg
    13.4 KB · Views: 389
Physics news on Phys.org
I am missing a force (*) in your drawing. Can you post your theoretical proof ?

[edit] (*) unless the B has a specific meaning
 
BvU said:
I am missing a force (*) in your drawing. Can you post your theoretical proof ?

[edit] (*) unless the B has a specific meaning
Sorry my fault, B is representing a point not a force. The theoretical proof is that in order for the sphere to rotate, the torque of F should be bigger than the torque of T. Its clear that both T and F are in the same distance from the center K which means we can now compare F and T as forces. The biggest value of T is always less than F since T=μ*N=0.25*N and N the reaction of the verticall wall is not big enough to cause balance.
 
PhysicS FAN said:
torque of T
Good you mention it. I can now even distinguish a T in the picture.

I agree with your reasoning and wonder why you have difficulty with the force balances: if you write then in full (i.e. ##\ \vec a = \displaystyle \sum \vec F\ \ ##) there should be no problem. Clearly there is no acceleration to the right, so the reaction force from the wall to the left is equal to F. That gives you the magnitude of T as you used it.

[edit] the next line is based on a wrong assumption:
Note that even when ##\mu = 1 \;##, nothing happens since the sum of vertical forces won't exceed 0.

[edit] the wrong assumption being: nothing happens with ##\mu = 0.25 \;##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhysicS FAN
BvU said:
Good you mention it. I can now even distinguish a T in the picture.

I agree with your reasoning and wonder why you have difficulty with the force balances: if you write then in full (i.e. ##\ \vec a = \displaystyle \sum \vec F\ \ ##) there should be no problem. Clearly there is no acceleration to the right, so the reaction force from the wall to the left is equal to F. That gives you the magnitude of T as you used it.

Note that even when ##\mu = 1 \;##, nothing happens since the sum of vertical forces won't exceed 0.
Yeah
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K