A ball is dropped perpendicular to the ground onto a slope.
How does the maximum distance d from the ball to the slope vary as the ball rolls down?
Details and Assumptions:
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Comment for Brian Lie -- Brian - In your second sentence you state "...as the ball rolls down." Shouldn't 'rolls' be 'bounces' instead ? The ball doesn't roll -- it bounces.
Log in to reply
Thank you for reminding. As the problem of week, it can't be edited anymore. You can report the problem.
Why is it allowed to ignore the roll energy, which takes away some of the potential energy as the ball rolls faster and faster?
Log in to reply
The ball is not rolling, it is bouncing. If we assume that collisions are smooth, the ball only experiences a normal impulsive reaction when it strikes the slope. This means that it never develops a rotation.
If the collisions were rough, the ball would experience an impulse parallel to and up the slope at each impact, in addition to the normal impulse above. The presence of friction would not affect the normal impulse, and the elastic nature of the collision would mean that d still remained constant. The friction impulse would create an increasing rotation in the ball, but would also act to reduce the speed of the ball parallel to the slope. Thus the transfer of energy to rotational energy of the ball would reduce the speed parallel to the slope, and hence reduce the distance between bounces, not their height.
But doesn't the angle it bounces from change, because at the first bounce the balli comes perpendicular to the floor but on the second bounce the ball comes at a steeper angle and therefore the height shud increase and distance increase?
Log in to reply
The component of the ball's velocity parallel to the floor (at the point of impact) increases from impact to impact, but the component of the ball's velocity perpendicular to the floor (at the point of impact) does not. Thus the height of the bounces stays the same, while the length of the bounces increases.
You need to consider motion parallel and perpendicular to the floor, not horizontally and vertically. You will note that the angle that the ball's path makes with the slope reduces from bounce to bounce, which reflects the fact that the parallel component of its velocity has increased.
Shouldn't neglectance of the change of g also be included in the description, otherwise the argumentation would not hold?
Log in to reply
I don't know what you mean about the change of g . My formula relating d and v ⊥ includes cos θ , which accounts for the fact that only a component of gravity acts normal to the slope. The value of g has not changed.
In a perfect world maby ......in ours not
assumed that the collisions were not elastic and that the vertical component of velocity would decrease, causing a net decrease in bounce distance.
Consider the system in a frame of reference where the x axis is parallel to the slope. In this frame of reference there is a "vertical" ( y direction) acceleration of gravity (that is reduced by a factor of cos α , where α is the angle of the slope relative to the horizontal direction). The equations of motions in the x and y directions are linear and independent. Accordingly, the ball will bounce to the same height in the y direction after each collision, just it would be if dropped onto a horizontal surface. Additionally, the ball will be also subject to a force in the x direction ( F = m g sin α ), that will make it accelerate, so that the distance between the subsequent touching points on the slope will be larger and larger with time.
how can the distance become greater and greater between each bounce down the slope? Shouldn't it stay constant too? where's the extra energy coming from in each impact?
Log in to reply
Because it moves downwards, its velocity parallel to the slope is increasing.
But the ball will be traveling faster at the second bounce than it did at the first bounce (because it will have fallen to a lower height).
Log in to reply
The velocity parallel to the slope is increasing, indeed.
considering the two extremes, either the slope is vertical or horizontal, both give a constant h.
If the slope is vertical there is no bounce.
Log in to reply
Precisely. It would constantly have no bounce.
Log in to reply
But, I don’t see how this proves d should be constant as θ varies from 0 to π/2.
Log in to reply
@Hubert Co – It doesn't. It isn't meant to. What we're showing is that d remains constant from one bounce to the next.
The question has a problem: the ball does not roll down the hill. “Continues down the hill” is probably better.
Conservation of energy is what came to mind for me first, and i guess it worked .
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
If the slope is angled at θ to the horizontal, the ball experiences an acceleration of g cos θ normal to the slope, and an acceleration of g sin θ parallel to the slope. Thus the maximum distance d of the ball from the slope is related to the component v ⊥ of the ball which is normal to the slope at the point of impact by the formula v ⊥ 2 = 2 g d cos θ Since collisions with the slope are perfectly elastic, v ⊥ remains unchanged from one bounce to the next, and hence d stays constant. Of course, the distance along the slope between impact points increases with time.