I Rolling ball, change of direction

AI Thread Summary
Applying a lateral force to a free-rolling ball on a plane introduces complex interactions involving friction and gyroscopic effects. When a force is exerted from the South, the ball rolls North at a constant speed. If a lateral force is then applied from the West, the trajectory of the ball is expected to change, potentially resulting in a North-East direction. The axis of rotation may not remain horizontal due to these interactions. Further insights from physics enthusiasts are sought to clarify the ball's motion and the behavior of its rotation axis.
jonbarril
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Say I have a magic way to exert lateral forces on a free-rolling ball on a plane, with no slipping. Say I apply a force for a given period from the South, the ball starts rolling to the North and attains a constant speed. Then I suddenly apply the same force for the same period but from the West. What is the resulting path of the ball on the plane? What is the path of the balls apparent axis of rotation (how does it change from East-West to eventually North-South, does it remain horizontal)?

Thanks
--jon
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you apply just a force at the ball's CoM, and it starts rolling, the you must have friction. If you then apply the lateral force you will have an interaction of friction gyroscopic effects, which can get quite complex and counter intuitive:

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes scottdave and PeroK
Forces are associated to accelerations.
How do you believe the trajectory will change?
 
It has been a long while since I took physics. I think the gyroscopic effect will work in favor of helping to turn the ball to the East. My guess is that the ball would end up rolling North-East. Not sure if the axis of rotation would stay flat. This is all complete conjecture. I'm hoping folks out there can give a more informed description of the ball's motion.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top