Two objects of identical mass, one is a cylinder, the other a sphere, (same diameter)set to roll down a slope. Ignoring friction and wind resistance, which reaches the bottom first?
Unfortunately I don't remember which college student posed the problem, so I need to post it for the general public. I know MY answer, but I would be interested to get an official physics-type to verify.
Thanks,
T
Physics question from earlier chat
Physics question from earlier chat
Remember, you didn't get the tiger so it would do what you wanted. You got the tiger to see what it wanted to do. -- Colin McEnroe
-
buddhu
- Posts: 4092
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 3:14 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: In a ditch, just down the road from the pub
- Contact:
As I recall, you can ignore mass too. Objects will accelerate at the same rate regardless of mass *provided* you remove friction etc from the picture.
May I ask what prompted the question?
May I ask what prompted the question?
And whether the blood be highland, lowland or no.
And whether the skin be black or white as the snow.
Of kith and of kin we are one, be it right, be it wrong.
As long as our hearts beat true to the lilt of a song.
And whether the skin be black or white as the snow.
Of kith and of kin we are one, be it right, be it wrong.
As long as our hearts beat true to the lilt of a song.
-
emmline
- Posts: 11859
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 10:33 am
- antispam: No
- Location: Annapolis, MD
- Contact:
Darwin wrote:If you're ignoring all factors other than mass, there are two answers:
1) both
2) neither
And if you're not ignoring all other factors...ie, a real-life environment with all the oddities that may befall the rolling objects...then the sphere will be less impeded by the possibility of getting directionally skewed and losing momentum.
-
chas
- Posts: 7707
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 10
- Location: East Coast US
If you're ignoring friction, then they're not rolling, they're sliding, in which the case is they arrive at the same time.
If they're rolling, the sphere will accelerate faster. Its moment of inertia (the equivalent of mass for rotational motion) is 2/5 mr^2, whereas that of the cylinder is 1/2 mr^2, where m is the mass and r the radius.
If they're rolling, the sphere will accelerate faster. Its moment of inertia (the equivalent of mass for rotational motion) is 2/5 mr^2, whereas that of the cylinder is 1/2 mr^2, where m is the mass and r the radius.
Charlie
Whorfin Woods
"Our work puts heavy metal where it belongs -- as a music genre and not a pollutant in drinking water." -- Prof Ali Miserez.
Whorfin Woods
"Our work puts heavy metal where it belongs -- as a music genre and not a pollutant in drinking water." -- Prof Ali Miserez.
Hey! I recognize this problem! Sounds rather too much like a physics problem I was doing while working on homework in chat one night... 
The professor later posted the answer on the web, this is his reply:
Q16. The sphere has greater speed at the bottom and reaches the bottom first. The total KE at the bottom = PE at the top = Mgh, which is the same for both, since both have the same mass. The sphere has a smaller moment of inertia I than the cylinder. Since, rotational KE= ½Iω2, the cylinder will have the greater rotational KE and the smaller translational KE, which is why the sphere win the race.
What ever happened to 2+2??
The professor later posted the answer on the web, this is his reply:
Q16. The sphere has greater speed at the bottom and reaches the bottom first. The total KE at the bottom = PE at the top = Mgh, which is the same for both, since both have the same mass. The sphere has a smaller moment of inertia I than the cylinder. Since, rotational KE= ½Iω2, the cylinder will have the greater rotational KE and the smaller translational KE, which is why the sphere win the race.
What ever happened to 2+2??