USAPhO 2008 F=ma exam #18, (gravitational potential)

In summary: R. It's a different radius. It's 2R. SoU1 = (-GM) / RU2 = (-G(2M))/ 2RThe second potential is half the first potential. Therefore, the second change in kinetic energy is half the first. Therefore, v2 = v1 / √2How do you know the force at z = R on the first case is 70% of the force at z = R in the second case? AMThe force at z=R in the first case was calculated in post #3:F = \frac{GM}{(R^2 + R^2)^{3/2}} = \frac{GM}{
  • #1
Agrasin
69
2
http://www.aapt.org/Programs/contest...08_fnet_ma.pdf

Homework Statement



A uniform circular ring of radius R is fixed in place. A particle is placed on the axis of the ring
at a distance much greater than R and allowed to fall towards the ring under the influence of the
ring’s gravity. The particle achieves a maximum speed v. The ring is replaced with one of the same
(linear) mass density but radius 2R, and the experiment is repeated. What is the new maximum
speed of the particle?

Homework Equations



U = -Gm1m2 / r2

basic kinematics

ρ= m/V = m / (2∏rA) (A = cross sectional area, although it is negligible I believe b/c they give you linear mass density)

mring = (2∏r)ρA

acceleration = Fg / mparticle = (Gmring)/d2 = (G(2∏r)ρA) / d2

The Attempt at a Solution



Here's how I solved this problem TWO DIFFERENT WAYS (once with kinematics, once with conservation of energy) and got (√2)v both times. The answer is 2v.

1) kinematics

asecond instance / afirst instance = a2 / a1 = [Gm2 / x2 ] / [Gm1 / x2 ] = m2 / m1 = 4∏rAρ / 2∏rAρ = 2.

So a2 = 2a1. Using vf2 = 2ad, I got vf2 / vf1 = √2(2a1)d / √2a1d

So I got the second instance's velocity = √2(first instance's velocity)

2) Conservation of energy

U = Gm / r → U2 / U1 = ((4∏r)GAρ) / ((2∏r)GAρ)

And so I got U2 = 2U1. Which means if the second instance has twice as much potential energy, it ends with twice as much kinetic energy. KE = mv2 / 2 → again I get √2 v

Erhalkdjflnaeflkjafsfdlkji'msofrustrated

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Agrasin said:
http://www.aapt.org/Programs/contest...08_fnet_ma.pdf

The Attempt at a Solution



Here's how I solved this problem TWO DIFFERENT WAYS (once with kinematics, once with conservation of energy) and got (√2)v both times. The answer is 2v.

If the force in the second case is always going to be double the force in the first, the change in kinetic energy will be double.

∫F2ds = ΔKE2 = ∫2F1ds = 2ΔKE1

[i.e. ∫F1ds = mvf12/2

∫F2ds = mvf22/2

Since mvf22/2 = ∫F2ds =
∫2F1ds = 2∫F1ds = 2mvf12/2 = m(√2vf1)2/2]∴vf2 = √2vf1

But the question is whether the premise is true for all distances.AM
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
The axial component of force on a unit mass located on the axis from an element of the ring, dm is:

[tex]dF = \frac{Gdm}{(r^2 + R^2)}\sin{\beta}[/tex]

where [itex]\sin{\beta}= \frac{r}{\sqrt{r^2+R^2}}[/itex] and r is the distance from the centre along the axis.

So the total axial force is:

[tex]\vec{F} = \int d\vec{F} = \frac{GM}{(r^2 + R^2)}\frac{r}{\sqrt{r^2+R^2}} = \frac{GMr}{(r^2 + R^2)^{3/2}}[/tex]

The potential at a point on the axis a distance r from the centre is:

[tex]U(r) = \int_0^r Fdr = \int_0^r \frac{GMr}{(r^2 + R^2)^{3/2}}dr[/tex]

If you can solve that integral, you will have the answer.

AM
 
  • #4
Andrew Mason said:
[tex]U(r) = \int_0^r Fdr = \int_0^r \frac{GMr}{(r^2 + R^2)^{3/2}}dr[/tex]

If you can solve that integral, you will have the answer.

AM

Hi Andrew Mason! :)

I don't think it is necessary to do those integrals. Any point on the axis of ring is equidistant from every part of the ring so we can assert that the potential is simply:

$$-\frac{GM}{\sqrt{z^2+R^2}}$$

where ##z## is the distance of point from the centre of ring.
 
  • #5
Pranav-Arora said:
Hi Andrew Mason! :)

I don't think it is necessary to do those integrals. Any point on the axis of ring is equidistant from every part of the ring so we can assert that the potential is simply:

$$-\frac{GM}{\sqrt{z^2+R^2}}$$

where ##z## is the distance of point from the centre of ring.

Ok. So work out the change in potential from z>>R to z=0.

What makes you think the correct answer is 2v?

AM
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #6
My last comment should have been directed at Agrasin: why do you think the correct answer is 2v? (hint: this is not the correct answer but neither is √2v).

AM
 
  • #7
@Andrew Mason

Sorry, I was looking at the wrong answer key. The correct answer is v, just v. Which is also confusing.

Also, why are you using √z2+R2? If I'm not mistaken, this expression is the distance from the particle to any point along the ring. However, the ring is symmetrical and can just be taken as a point mass.

In the second case, the point mass is twice the mass of the first point mass.
 
  • #8
Agrasin said:
@Andrew Mason

Sorry, I was looking at the wrong answer key. The correct answer is v, just v. Which is also confusing.

Also, why are you using √z2+R2? If I'm not mistaken, this expression is the distance from the particle to any point along the ring. However, the ring is symmetrical and can just be taken as a point mass.

In the second case, the point mass is twice the mass of the first point mass.
The kinetic energy would double only if the force was always double (see post #2). But from the equation for force (post #3) you can see that this is not the case where z (i.e. r in my equation) is not >>R. When z = R the force in the second case is only 70% of the force in the first.It is easier to do the actual calculations using potentials. As Pranav-Arora pointed out, the potential is:

[tex]U(z) = -\frac{GM}{\sqrt{(z^2 + R^2)}}[/tex]

so for z = 0

[tex]U(z) = -\frac{GM}{R}[/tex]

The change in potential is equal and opposite to the change in KE per unit mass. Since the potential at z>>R is very small compared the potential at z = 0, the change in potential in going from z >> R to z=0 is essentially the potential at z=0.

Work out those potentials in each of the two scenarios to compare the changes in kinetic energy per unit mass.

AM
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #9
Okay.

U1 = (-GM) / R

U2 = (-G(2M))/ R

The second potential is twice the first. Therefore, the second change in kinetic energy is twice the first.

Again, I'm arriving at v2 = √2v1
 
  • #10
Agrasin said:
U1 = (-GM) / R
U2 = (-G(2M))/ R

The radius of the second ring is not R.
 
  • #11
But I thought the rings could be treated as point masses.

And R in the gravitational potential equation is the distance from the particle (R, constant) to the point mass, I believe.
 
  • #12
no, because the Force (along the axis) actually goes to ZERO at the ring center ... there, all the individual Force contributions are _outward_

(since acceleration is not constant, cannot use v²=2ad)
 
  • #13
So yes, it will accelerate less when it gets closer to the ring, where r<<R is no longer true. But the maximum velocity achieved by both particles can be calculated assuming the rings are point masses, can't it?
 
  • #14
Agrasin said:
So yes, it will accelerate less when it gets closer to the ring, where r<<R is no longer true. But the maximum velocity achieved by both particles can be calculated assuming the rings are point masses, can't it?
No. The rings can be treated as approximately point masses only where z>>R. This is apparent from the expression for potential (ie. potential energy per unit mass).

First of all you have to figure out where the maximum velocity will be. That occurs at z=?

To find the change in kinetic energy (per unit mass), you just have to find the change in potential energy per unit mass (ie. the change in potential) between the starting point (where z>>R) and the point of maximum speed.

As I explained, the potential at z>>R can be neglected as its absolute value is much, much smaller than the absolute value of the potential where z is close to R. As z increases the potential approaches 0.

AM
 
  • #15
Maximum velocity occurs when R = 0, or when the particle goes through the center of the ring. Until then, acceleration is positive, but there, acceleration switches direction.

So... The change in velocity is negligible until z = R ? If that's the case, I see how the velocities are equal because the change in potential energy (and kinetic energy) is equal in both instances between √(z2+r2) and z. But isn't z=R a pretty arbitrary choice? Couldn't you say the velocity is negligible only until 2z = R ?

Thanks for your patience :-)
 
  • #16
Agrasin said:
Maximum velocity occurs when R = 0, or when the particle goes through the center of the ring. Until then, acceleration is positive, but there, acceleration switches direction.
R is a constant - it is the radius of the ring. Only z changes. Maximum velocity occurs when the rate of change of velocity i.e. acceleration (i.e. force) along the axis is 0, which occurs when z = 0 (r=0 in my #3 post).

AM
 

FAQ: USAPhO 2008 F=ma exam #18, (gravitational potential)

What is the concept of gravitational potential?

The gravitational potential is a measure of the potential energy that a mass has in a gravitational field. It represents the work that must be done to move a unit mass from an infinite distance to a given point in the field.

How is gravitational potential related to gravitational force?

The gravitational potential is directly related to the gravitational force between two masses. The higher the gravitational potential, the stronger the force between the two masses.

How is gravitational potential calculated?

The gravitational potential can be calculated using the equation V = -GM/r, where G is the universal gravitational constant, M is the mass of the larger object, and r is the distance between the two masses.

How does gravitational potential vary with distance?

Gravitational potential decreases with distance from the source of the gravitational field. This means that the closer an object is to a source of gravity, the higher its potential energy will be.

What is the unit of gravitational potential?

The unit of gravitational potential is Joules per kilogram (J/kg). This unit represents the amount of energy per unit mass that is required to move an object from an infinite distance to a given point in a gravitational field.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top