0
$\begingroup$

I was solving this problem :

Suppose you put a sphere in a rough ground with velocity of center of mass $v_{cm}= v_o$ in the positive $x$ axis and with anticlockwise angular momentum $\omega_o$ so velocity due to center of mass and angular velocity at bottom-most point both points in the same direction. What is the relation between $\omega_o$ and $v_o$, so the sphere returns back.

Now friction acts in negative axis and provide both angular retardation and transnational. Only way the sphere can return back if time to make $v_o$ zero is less than time to make$\omega_o$ zero and working out the equations gives an answer which matches with the one given in text i.e $\omega_o < 2v_o/R$.

But how can this be? More importantly if a body starts returning, how can it ever attain pure rolling? ( Which is inevitable since it is being placed in an rough ground)

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm pretty sure that answer is wrong. It implies that if you started the sphere sliding along the floor ($\omega_0 = 0$), it would return to you, which is obviously false. You should find that $\omega_0$ has to be greater than some threshold value, not less than it. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 13:54
  • $\begingroup$ Whoever asked the question and used the words "angular momentum $\omega_0$" seems to have forgotten that angular velocity is usually written as $\omega$ while angular momentum gets the symbol $L$. $\endgroup$
    – Floris
    Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 16:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelSeifert So would you call this "motion: impossible"? $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 16:14

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

@ChrisDrost's answer is correct, but we can actually remove the assumption that the friction is constant by considering conservation of angular momentum instead.

If we put our origin at a point along the ground, then there is no net torque on the sphere: The frictional force always points directly towards (or away from) the origin, and the normal force and gravitational force act along the same line and are equal and opposite. Thus, angular momentum about this point is concerned. We also know that the angular momentum of the sphere is given by $$ \vec{L} = m\vec{r} \times \vec{v} + \vec{L}_\text{CM}, $$ which in this case works out to $$ L = m R v + I \omega. $$ A sphere rolling without slipping will have $v = R \omega$, which in this case means that $$ L = (m R^2 + I) \omega = (m R^2 + I) \frac{v}{R}. $$ In particular, if the sphere is to end up rolling without slipping in the negative direction ($v < 0$), then its angular momentum will be negative, and so its initial angular momentum must be negative as well. The initial angular momentum is $m R v_0 - I \omega_0$, so this therefore implies that to get the sphere to return, we must have $\omega_0 > v_0 R/I$. In the case of a solid sphere, this works out to $\omega_0 > \frac{5}{2} v_0/R$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I would suggest leaving the answer in terms of $I$ until the very last line - then you can find both the answer in terms of $v_0$ and $R$, and also determine the value of $I$ needed to get the answer given... $\endgroup$
    – Floris
    Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 16:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Floris: Done and done. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 17:34
1
$\begingroup$

So this is a phenomenon which is known in billiards as "backspin": you hit a ball off-center and it simultaneously has a motion "forwards" but a spin that imparts a force on the ground to send it "backwards". Trick shots where you induce extreme amounts of backspin by hitting the ball almost vertically downwards are known sometimes as "massé shots", if you want to see some videos of backspin in extreme action.

Such billiard balls do return to a "pure-rolling" state (i.e. rolling without slip) and indeed you can view the curving trajectory of the ball as being due to friction "wanting" to return the ball back to this pure-rolling/no-slip state. Since it's spinning as if it's rolling backwards but traveling as if it's rolling forwards, the force brings these both to some sort of "middle ground": either spinning forwards and traveling forwards or spinning backwards and traveling backwards.

As you note, there is a constant torque $\tau = - \mu ~m~ g ~ R$ on the ball's rotation in addition to the constant force $F = -\mu ~m~ g$ on the ball's forward speed; if $I$ is its moment of inertia then after a time $t$ we see angular velocity and velocity differences $$\begin{array}{cc}\omega = & \omega_0 - \frac{\mu~m~g~R}{I}~ t \\ v = & v_0 - \mu~g~ t\end{array}$$which continue until a time when the rotational equilibrium $ R \omega = - v$ takes over. At this time we can say that the backspin wins if $\omega > 0,$ so $(1 + \frac{mR^2}{I}) ~ \omega > 0,$ so $\omega - \frac{mR}I v > 0$. I've chosen this combination carefully so that $t$ falls out:$$\omega_0 ~-~ \frac{\mu~m~g~R}I ~ t ~-~ \frac{m~R}{I}\left(v_0 ~-~ \mu~ g~ t \right) > 0,$$leaving just$$\omega_0 > \frac{m R}{I} v_0.$$Now the only way I get your quoted result is for $I = \frac 12 m R^2$, which is characteristic of a solid cylinder but not either a solid or hollow ball: in fact the ball would have to have a hollow center of radius $R ~ \frac 14\left(\sqrt{5 + 4 \sqrt{5}} - 1\right)\approx 0.68355 R$ to have this particular moment of inertia, making it about 31.9% empty space by volume rather than the usual values of 0% or 100%.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Note also that the quoted result says that $\omega_0 < 2 v_0/R$, rather than greater than. This may have just been a typo, though. My answer (using angular momentum conservation) agrees with yours. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 15:26
  • $\begingroup$ Also, I'm 99.9% sure it's a "massé" shot, not a "Massey" shot. The OED says that the word dates back to the late 19th century, long before Mike Massey was born. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 15:30
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelSeifert I've changed "Massey" to "massé" as you do indeed seem to be right; I had just absorbed two independent pieces of information that I assumed were backed by the same word. The angular momentum derivation I feel is an interesting case of Ovid's "video meliora proboque deteriora sequor" or Einstein's "chalk is cheaper than grey matter": I saw indeed that derivation (I'd mention the "parallel axis theorem" to help the student Google more) and it is much simpler and more profound, but since the question was "how is this possible?" I wanted to be more kinematic. $\endgroup$
    – CR Drost
    Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 16:06
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, your method is valuable as well—conservation laws can obscure the fine details of the dynamics, and it's good to go back to Newton's Laws (if you can) to find out what's really happening. Also: the angular momentum result I used isn't really the "parallel-axis theorem" as I understand the term; it's usually reserved for the theorem about the moment of inertia of rigid objects rotating about a point other than their CM. (The sphere isn't rotating about such a point in this case.) $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 17:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.