4

The experiment shown in the image suggests that ball B will reach the goal faster than ball A although the balls have identical properties and they start from the same height.enter image description here

The authors even suggest that this phenomenon is independent from the the depth of the hollow. Can someone explain this to effect to me especially concerning the fact that it wouldn't matter even if the hollow was 400 km deep?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Flo Ryan
  • 143
  • 1
    Which authors ? – Qmechanic May 13 '15 at 22:27
  • 1
    Closely related to the Brachistochrone, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve

    Just wanted a chance to use the word :)

    – DJohnM May 13 '15 at 23:44
  • @Qmechanic - I found it in a German book "Grundlagen und Praxis der Freien Energie" by H.Chmela and R.Smetana. I strongly advise you not to take a look into it. They explain the outcome of the experiment with "free energy". I got curious and did want to know better. – Flo Ryan May 14 '15 at 13:05

3 Answers3

3

You can distinguish from vertical and horizontal velocity. Both balls have the same horizontal velocity, the difference lies in the vertical component. Up to the second trough there is no difference, but then the second ball accelerates downwards. It can't go straight down, which means that the gravity partially accelerates it horizontally. This difference in Velocity is neutralized at the end of the trough. Now the second ball was for some amount of time faster (hotizontally) than the first one.

A.Phys
  • 123
  • Right. Note that if the hollow is so deep that the ball loses contact with the surface, it is possible that it will not make it out of the hole on the other side... but with that proviso your answer is correct. – Floris May 13 '15 at 21:22
  • Of course yes, I wasn't trying to go into the depth of the hollow as that could be a little hard to grasp. But maybe i was wrong – A.Phys May 13 '15 at 21:25
  • I just added that since the question said "it wouldn't matter even if the hollow was 400 km deep" – Floris May 13 '15 at 21:27
  • Just to clarify as i myself am not completely certain: That the ball might not roll out of the trough again would be due to the lost energy as heat during impact? – A.Phys May 13 '15 at 21:31
  • @Floris is does not even have to lose contact with the surface, namely if it slips it can also loss energy and not make it to the other side. You also have to neglect drag. – fibonatic May 13 '15 at 21:33
  • No - I am assuming there are no losses between the ball and the surface (otherwise there is definitely a limit - the further the ball has to go, the more work done against friction). But if the surface bends away sharply, then the relative velocity of the ball when it hits the opposing wall will make it continue downwards (it did not experience the upward force from the bottom of the hollow, and instead jumped straight to the opposing wall. Splat.) – Floris May 13 '15 at 21:35
  • @fibonatic - right; this whole scenario has to assume no drag, but that is not sufficient. – Floris May 13 '15 at 21:35
  • Okay I don't get it quite yet. Sorry guys. Lets assume that ball A takes one second to travel the required distance. It seems so non-intuitive to me that ball B would travel 800+km in less time given that the only force that accelerates the ball is the gravitational force. – Flo Ryan May 13 '15 at 21:42
  • @A.Phys but where did the extra energy come from? Assume that for the first case it took $t_A$ time to get to the point 2. For the second case it took $t_B<t_A$ amount of time, which means that the time-averaged speed of $B$ is bigger than of $A$, which means its average kinetic energy is more than the other one. However they both started with same energy! – Gonenc May 13 '15 at 21:46
  • @FloRyan, it won't. See the first comment from Floris. If the dip is too steep, then it won't work. The dip could be 400km in height, but only if it is quite wide as well. – BowlOfRed May 14 '15 at 05:44
  • @gonenc Yes they both started with the same energy, but the first ball has, while the second one is rolling in the hollow, more potential energy than the second ball, which has used it's (potential energy) to accelerate, and then decelerate for regaining the potential energy. – A.Phys May 14 '15 at 08:06
  • @gonenc - More to the point, "average kinetic energy" is meaningless in this context. At various points in its path the ball has differing amounts of kinetic and potential energy, but the total remains the same. So it moves faster as it gets lower, then loses the speed as it rises. – WhatRoughBeast May 14 '15 at 13:36
3

Let's call the rightward horizontal direction $+x$, and the upward vertical direction $+y$. Both balls reach point 1 at the same time, going the same speed. They both have the same $x$-component of velocity.

At the beginning of the dip in B's path, ball A remains at constant velocity, $v_1\hat{i}$, but ball B gains in $v_x$ until the bottom of the dip. It then loses in $v_x$, but remains greater than $v_1$ until the end of the dip, where it cruises along horizontally at $v_1$.

The time that ball B arrives at the $x$ location of the end of the dip is $t_B$. The time that ball A arrives at the $x$ location of the end of the dip in B's path is $t_A$.

Both balls travel the same $\Delta x$, so they both must have the same area under the $v(t)$ vs. $t$ curves.

v-t curves

In order to have the same area, it must be true that $t_B-t_1$ < $t_A-t_1$, or $t_B < t_A$. Ball B arrives at the $x$ position of the end of the dip before ball A, and it remains ahead of ball A.

Bill N
  • 15,410
  • 3
  • 38
  • 60
2

If we don't consider air friction with the ball, then you can see two different effects: an increase in length of the path and an increase in velocity of the ball. Turns out that the second effect more than compensate the first.

An exact calculation isn't simple for arbitrary shapes, but we can see a simplification: let's say from (1) to (2) the length is $L$. At (1) both balls have velocity $v = \sqrt{2 g h}$ from conservation of energy. So ball A goes from (1) to (2) in time $t_A = \dfrac{L}{v} = \dfrac{L}{\sqrt{2 g h}}$.

Second assumption: instead of a smooth curve, ball B sees the path curving down at 45° with a vertical drop $d$, then an horizontal path with length $L - 2\sqrt{2} d$ and finally the path rises with an angle of 45° and goes back at the same height as before. If the ball isn't too fast this assumption is good enough to avoid jumps and recoils.

Third: to simplify even further, let's assume the balls are point-like.

How much time does B need to go from (A) to (B)? From (A) to the bottom of the hollow it's an accelerated motion with acceleration $a_1 = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} g$ and a length $l_1 = \sqrt{2}d$, so the time needed is $t_1 = 2\dfrac{\sqrt{h + d} - \sqrt{h}}{\sqrt{g}}$ and has a velocity $v_1 = \sqrt{2 g (h + d)}$.

Second part, this is simpler, it takes $t_2 = \dfrac{l_2}{v_1} = \dfrac{L - 2\sqrt{2}d}{\sqrt{2g(h+d)}}$, the velocity is the same.

Third part, we are almost there. Now the ball is decelerating ($a_3 = -a_1$), but $t_3 = t_1$ and the velocity is again $\sqrt{2 g h}$.

The total time needed by ball B then is $$t_B = t_1 + t_2 + t_3 = 4\dfrac{\sqrt{h + d} - \sqrt{h}}{\sqrt{g}} + \dfrac{L - 2\sqrt{2}d}{\sqrt{2g(h+d)}}$$ With a common denominator it becomes: $$t_B = \dfrac{2\sqrt{2} (2h+d) - 4 \sqrt{2h(h+d)} + L}{\sqrt{2g(h+d)}}$$ Yet again it's not so easy to show that this formula represents a smaller time than $t_A$, so let's see a few properties: if $d=0$, $t_B=t_A$, as expected. We can ask if there are other solutions to the equation $t_A = t_B$. There is one other, $d = \dfrac{L(L+4\sqrt{2}h)}{8h}$, but if we calculate the length of the second segment, it turns out it's $L-2\sqrt{2}d = - \dfrac{L(\sqrt{2}L + 4h)}{4h}$, which is negative and thus has no physical and geometrical meaning.

That means that for this particular path there is no other depth $d$ that lets ball B run the whole trajectory in the same time as ball A. So it has to be always less or always more. We can check with a random value, for example $d = h$, and we obtain $t_B(d=h) = \dfrac{L}{2 \sqrt{gh}} + (3\sqrt{2}-4) \sqrt{\dfrac{h}{g}}$. $t_B < t_A$ for $L > \dfrac{6\sqrt{2}-8}{\sqrt{2}-1}h$, which is a pretty good condition since $L$ must also be greater than $2\sqrt{2}h$, which is even bigger.

So, we show that the longest path takes less time in this particular configuration. We can imagine it's pretty much the same for any other similar configuration, but it would be less intuitive to calculate.

All the calculations are left as exercise for the reader, I don't want to spoil all the fun. I hope they are all correct.

GRB
  • 1,421
  • 1
  • 13
  • 27