Hypothesizing the KE lost in a number of collisons

  • Thread starter PhysicsPhanatic
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Lost
In summary, the angle of an inclined plane impacts the horizontal translational kinetic energy of a solid cylinder after it impacts and bounces across a horizontal surface. The number of collisions has no significant effect on the horizontal translational kinetic energy.
  • #1
PhysicsPhanatic
4
0

Homework Statement


I suppose my question is a broad one. I am writing a Physics Extended Essay for the IB program (approx. 4000 words). My research question is "How does the angle of an inclined plane impact the horizontal translational kinetic energy of a solid cylinder [after it impacts and bounces across a horizontal surface, probably a wooden table, given no slipping]?", though this is not the question I need answered.
upload_2015-5-10_22-14-46.png

I am struggling to figure out how one might figure out theoretically how much KE the cylinder will lose due to the collisions (experimentally I can do this with a high speed camera).
Is the KE lost to the collisions solely based on that of the vertical component, or is some of the horizontal component lost as well, or even the angular? Does the number of collisions matter?
I do not have an experiment done yet, nor should I for this essay at this point, thus I have no numbers.
If someone could direct me to a source, that would be fantastic.

Homework Equations


Coefficient of Restitution
cimg198.gif

Vy = mg*sinθ, where θ is the angle of incline

The Attempt at a Solution


I am beginning to figure that the number of collisions is theoretically insignificant, though that is if the KE lost in the collision is solely that of the vertical component, where KE lost = .5m*(Vy)^2 = .5m(mg*sinθ)^2
Intuitively (which is a dangerous way to look at physics), I do not see the collisions having an effect on the horizontal component at any point.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2015-5-10_22-11-59.png
    upload_2015-5-10_22-11-59.png
    48.5 KB · Views: 431
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I can't really help but..

Is it possible to have no slipping? During the contact phase of a bounce the normal component will increase from zero (just before impact) to some maximum value and then reduce to zero again (as it takes off again). I might be wrong but it seems to me that it must slip at some point in that process but perhaps it can be ignored?
 
  • Like
Likes PhysicsPhanatic
  • #3
If we ignore friction and rolling resistance then i believe the answer is easy, as you say, it is only the vertical component that will lose kinetic energy and not the horizontal.

However if there is friction and/or rolling resistance then during the contact time window (which will be small but not zero) some of the rotational kinetic energy and horizontal kinetic energy might be lost as well.

Rolling resistance can be neglected if the cylinder and the horizontal plane are made from material that doesn't deform during the contact.

So if we are left to deal only with friction, then what happens is that some of the total rotational kinetic energy (right before the first collision) will be converted to horizontal translational kinetic energy, so the horizontal kinetic energy will increase afterall.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PhysicsPhanatic
  • #4
The slipping cannot be ignored, but it can be quantified. For any gain (or loss) in linear momentum due to friction there will be a corresponding loss (or gain) in angular momentum. The final state of motion will be that unique state of motion where angular momentum and linear momentum match up for rolling without slipping.
 
  • Like
Likes mfb and PhysicsPhanatic
  • #5
Thanks guys! I should have a lot of meat on my plate with this one, but your responses help with guiding me what I ought to be looking for.
 
  • #6
In rolling contact at a steady speed on horizontal ground, there is no friction. There is drag and rolling resistance.
Putting those aside for the moment, consider the rate of rotation as it reaches the bottom of the ramp. As you note, the vertical component of velocity will be lost during the bounces. What does that tell you about the rate of rotation when rolling contact is eventually restored?
So what will the effect of friction be?
 
  • #7
haruspex said:
In rolling contact at a steady speed on horizontal ground, there is no friction. There is drag and rolling resistance.
Putting those aside for the moment, consider the rate of rotation as it reaches the bottom of the ramp. As you note, the vertical component of velocity will be lost during the bounces. What does that tell you about the rate of rotation when rolling contact is eventually restored?
So what will the effect of friction be?
Are you pointing out that the rate of rotation (omega) should equal the (eventual horizontal velocity component)/radius as soon as the rolling contact is restored? If that's the case, I don't see how friction plays into that. I do understand that dynamic friction is the way of the land when it is slipping and static friction is the force required to cause slipping (since there is no motion between the cylinder's contact point and the surface during perfect rotation), yet again, I don't understand how that knowledge applies into the angular and horizontal components.
Regarding the change in angular momentum (from which change in kinetic energy can be then found), I don't see how one can predict either the time of contact or the angular acceleration in ΔL=I*Δt*α, which is my biggest problem with my experiment. Is that even possible? I can see how to figure it with the proper measurements taken, but I do not see a way to model it.
 
  • #8
PhysicsPhanatic said:
Are you pointing out that the rate of rotation (omega) should equal the (eventual horizontal velocity component)/radius as soon as the rolling contact is restored?
Yes, both at the approach to the bottom of the ramp, and again later. Which rotation rate will be the greater?
PhysicsPhanatic said:
I don't see how friction plays into that.
Friction is the only force available to change the rotation rate.
PhysicsPhanatic said:
static friction is the force required to cause slipping
Static friction does not cause slipping. It's exceeding the limit of static friction that leads to slipping.
PhysicsPhanatic said:
I don't see how one can predict either the time of contact or the angular acceleration
You don't need to worry about time or acceleration. Use conservation laws. (For conservation of angular momentum, you can often eliminate unknown forces by careful selection of the reference axis.)
 
  • Like
Likes PhysicsPhanatic
  • #9
As I tried (and perhaps failed) to convey in post #4 above, you do not need to know the friction and you do not need to know the change in kinetic energy. You can and should know the initial values for horizontal linear momentum and angular momentum. You can compute the ratio between how much linear momentum can be gained due to friction per unit of angular momentum that is lost due to friction. If you wish, you can do that the obvious way -- figure out how much change in each quantity will result from a frictional impulse of 1 kg meter/second.

Depending on exactly how you set up your variable naming conventions, that should lead you to two [or more] simultaneous linear equations in two [or more] unknowns.

One equation will assert the relationship that you calculated above between angular momentum and linear momentum. It may be convenient to write that equation using starting linear momentum and starting angular momentum as named parameters. The other equation will assert the condition that must apply for rolling without slipping.

Solve for final linear momentum and divide by mass. Or solve for final angular momentum, divide by moment of inertia and multiply by radius.
 
  • Like
Likes PhysicsPhanatic
  • #10
Thanks. I will probably come back to this in a week or so and try to make sense of it all a bit more, but right now I've got other finals to study for. You guys put a lot of work into helping students, and should give yourselves hearty pats on the back.
 

Related to Hypothesizing the KE lost in a number of collisons

1.

What is the purpose of hypothesizing the KE lost in a number of collisions?

The purpose of hypothesizing the KE lost in a number of collisions is to predict the amount of kinetic energy that will be lost in a given number of collisions. This can help scientists understand the efficiency of energy transfer in a system and make predictions about the impact of collisions on objects.

2.

How do scientists calculate the KE lost in a number of collisions?

Scientists use the formula KE = 1/2mv^2 to calculate the kinetic energy of an object. By measuring the mass and velocity of the objects involved in the collisions, they can calculate the initial and final kinetic energy and determine the amount of energy lost in the collisions.

3.

What factors can affect the amount of KE lost in a number of collisions?

The amount of KE lost in a number of collisions can be affected by the mass and velocity of the objects involved, as well as the type of collision (elastic or inelastic). Other factors such as friction and external forces can also play a role in the energy lost during collisions.

4.

Why is it important to consider the KE lost in a number of collisions?

Considering the KE lost in a number of collisions is important because it allows scientists to understand the efficiency of energy transfer in a system. This can have practical applications in industries such as transportation and construction, where collisions and energy transfer are a concern.

5.

How does the conservation of energy relate to hypothesizing the KE lost in a number of collisions?

The conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transferred from one form to another. This concept applies to hypothesizing the KE lost in a number of collisions, as the total amount of initial kinetic energy must equal the total amount of final kinetic energy and energy lost during the collisions.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top