Rolling without slipping down a hill

In summary, the conversation discusses the problem of a basketball rolling down an incline at an angle θ with a coefficient of static friction μs. The ball is modeled as a thin spherical shell and the goal is to find the acceleration of the center of mass of the ball. The conversation covers various attempts at solving the problem, including using Newton's second law for translation and rotation, and considering the maximum value of static friction. In the end, a solution is reached where the maximum incline can be found by setting μsmgcosθ = 2/5mgsinθ and solving for θ.
  • #1
IWuvTeTwis
7
0

Homework Statement


A basketball rolls without slipping down an incline of angle θ. The coefficient of static friction is μs. Model the ball as a thin spherical shell. (Use any variable or symbol stated above along with the following as necessary: m for the mass of the ball and g.) ]

a) Find the acceleration of the center of mass of the ball

I made this picture of the forces for this situation: http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/43/balldownhill.png

Homework Equations



F = ma
τ = Iα
τ = rxF

The Attempt at a Solution


I found that
mgsinθ + μsmgcosθ = ma
solving for a we get a = gsinθ + μsgcosθ which doesn't seem to be the right answer

additionally from τ = Iα, I found Fs*r = Iα since the only force causing torque is Fs
This equals μsmgcosθ * r = mr^2*a/r
which simplifies down to a = μsgcosθ

obviously neither of these are correct so I'm confused as to where I went wrong
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
IWuvTeTwis said:
I found that
mgsinθ + μsmgcosθ = ma
(1) Do not assume that the static friction is at its maximum value.
(2) Do you think that the presence of friction increases the acceleration?
 
  • #3
would the translational form of Newton's second law be mgsinθ - Fs = ma then?
And if so, I can use Newton's second law for rotation to find that Fs*r = mR^2*a/r getting that ma = Fs
Plugging this into the translational form of the equation I would obtain a = 1/2gsinθ. Is that the answer then?
 
  • #4
IWuvTeTwis said:
would the translational form of Newton's second law be mgsinθ - Fs = ma then?
Exactly.
And if so, I can use Newton's second law for rotation to find that Fs*r = mR^2*a/r getting that ma = Fs
Right idea, but wrong rotational inertia. (It's a spherical shell, not a cylindrical shell.)
Plugging this into the translational form of the equation I would obtain a = 1/2gsinθ. Is that the answer then?
Redo your rotation equation and you'll have it.
 
  • #5
Would the frictional force acting on the ball then be 2/3*ma?
 
  • #6
mistasong said:
Would the frictional force acting on the ball then be 2/3*ma?
Yes.
 
  • #7
I am trying to figure out what the maximum incline can be for the ball to roll without slipping. I know that the nonslip condition means a = rα but I do not understand how to connect it with the problem.
 
  • #8
mistasong said:
I am trying to figure out what the maximum incline can be for the ball to roll without slipping. I know that the nonslip condition means a = rα but I do not understand how to connect it with the problem.
The nonslip condition is part of it. What you want to solve for is the angle that makes the friction force equal to its maximum value. That will depend on the coefficient of friction, of course.
 
  • #9
Okay so I find that a = 3/5gsinθ plugging that into f = 2/3ma i get f = 2/5mgsinθ. Because static friction is at its maximum value, I set the equation as μsmgcosθ = 2/5mgsinθ and solving for θ gets me 5/2μs = tanθ. Is this correct?
 
  • #10
mistasong said:
Okay so I find that a = 3/5gsinθ plugging that into f = 2/3ma i get f = 2/5mgsinθ. Because static friction is at its maximum value, I set the equation as μsmgcosθ = 2/5mgsinθ and solving for θ gets me 5/2μs = tanθ. Is this correct?
Yes. That looks good.
 

FAQ: Rolling without slipping down a hill

What is "rolling without slipping down a hill"?

Rolling without slipping down a hill is a physics concept that refers to the motion of a rolling object on an inclined surface without losing contact with the surface. This means that the object is both rolling and sliding at the same time.

How is rolling without slipping different from rolling with slipping?

Rolling without slipping is different from rolling with slipping in that the former involves both rolling and sliding motion, while the latter only involves rolling motion. In other words, rolling without slipping means that the object maintains contact with the ground, while rolling with slipping means that the object loses contact with the ground and slides.

What is the cause of rolling without slipping down a hill?

The cause of rolling without slipping down a hill is the combination of gravitational force and the rotational force of the object. The gravitational force pulls the object down the hill, while the rotational force prevents it from slipping.

What factors affect the ability of an object to roll without slipping down a hill?

The ability of an object to roll without slipping down a hill is affected by several factors, including the mass and shape of the object, the slope of the hill, and the coefficient of friction between the object and the surface. Objects with a larger mass or a higher coefficient of friction are more likely to roll without slipping down a hill.

How is rolling without slipping down a hill related to kinetic and potential energy?

Rolling without slipping down a hill involves the conversion of potential energy (due to the object's position on the hill) into kinetic energy (due to its motion). The rotational motion of the object also contributes to its kinetic energy. The object will continue to roll without slipping as long as the sum of its potential and kinetic energy remains constant.

Back
Top