1.5.14 · D5Rotational Mechanics

Question bank — Rolling KE = ½mv² + ½Iω²

1,159 words5 min readBack to topic

True or false — justify

A ring and a solid sphere of the same mass and radius rolling at the same have the same total KE
False. Same but different : ring has , sphere has , so the ring carries more KE at equal speed.
Doubling an object's mass doubles its rolling KE at fixed
True. is linear in , and depends only on shape, not on mass — so mass scales KE directly.
Two spheres of the same shape but different radii reach the bottom of a ramp at the same speed
True. and is for any solid sphere; radius cancels entirely, so both arrive at the same .
The rotational fraction of KE can exceed
True — but only for , i.e. mass concentrated beyond (rare). For a plain ring gives exactly ; standard solid shapes stay below.
König's theorem only holds when the body rolls without slipping
False. König's split is valid for any rigid body in plane motion. Rolling-without-slipping is only needed to link and collapse KE into one variable.
If a wheel spins in place (car stuck in mud, ) its KE is zero
False. Translational KE is zero but is large — all the energy is locked in spin because the no-slip link is broken.
On a frictionless ramp a ball still rolls and gains spin as it descends
False. With zero friction there is no torque about the center, so never changes; the ball slides down and arrives at , faster than if it rolled.
For rolling without slipping, static friction does no work
True. The contact point is instantaneously at rest, so the friction force acts through zero displacement per instant — it supplies torque but transfers no energy.

Spot the error

"A rolling disc is just a moving object, so its KE is ."
Wrong: it is also spinning. You must add ; ignoring it undercounts KE and falsely predicts all shapes reach the ramp bottom at equal speed.
"KE of rolling ."
Double-counting. Either use or alone — never both. By the parallel-axis theorem already contains the piece.
"The heavier ball wins the downhill race."
Mass is irrelevant. Both PE () and KE () scale with , so it cancels; only decides the order.
"Since translation and rotation are independent motions, I can pick any and any ."
Only true when slipping. For rolling without slipping the constraint locks them together — they are not free to choose independently.
"A solid sphere and hollow sphere of equal mass and radius reach the bottom together."
No. , so the solid sphere () beats the hollow one ().
"The cross term in König's derivation vanishes because is small."
No — it vanishes exactly and always, because : the center of mass has zero velocity relative to itself, regardless of how fast is.
"To find KE I use where is the radius of gyration."
Wrong . The rolling constraint uses the geometric radius (the one touching the ground). The radius of gyration (with ) is a different length used inside , not in .

Why questions

Why does a ring lose a downhill race to a solid sphere of the same mass and radius?
The ring's larger diverts a bigger fraction ( vs ) of the released PE into spinning, leaving less for forward motion, so its is smaller.
Why can we add translational and rotational KE instead of doing something more complicated?
Because König's cross term dies (), the two energies decouple cleanly — nothing is shared or double-counted between the sliding and spinning pictures.
Why is the race order independent of ramp angle and height?
for every ramp; changing or angle rescales all speeds by the same factor, so the ordering by never changes.
Why does static (not kinetic) friction act in rolling without slipping?
The contact point has zero relative sliding velocity, which is exactly the condition for static friction; kinetic friction only appears once the surfaces slide against each other.
Why does viewing rolling as pure rotation about the contact point give the same KE?
Parallel-axis: , so — algebraically identical.
Why doesn't the no-slip constraint hold on ice?
With too little friction the wheel slips, so the contact point moves relative to the surface; and you must track and as separate quantities.

Edge cases

A body sliding without any rotation () down a frictionless slope — what is its KE at the bottom?
Pure translation: with . This is the limit / no-spin case, the fastest possible descent.
A hoop with all mass on the rim () — what fraction of its rolling KE is rotational?
Exactly half: . Equal energy in sliding and spinning — the extreme among common shapes.
What happens to at the bottom as (imaginary mass flung far from the axis)?
: almost all PE goes into spin, so translational descent slows toward a crawl.
At the instant a wheel starts from rest and , is any KE present?
If it also isn't spinning (), no. But if released rolling from rest both are zero at ; KE only appears once it acquires speed and, by the constraint, spin together.
A perfectly point-like particle () "rolling" down a ramp — what does the formula give?
, so and — it behaves like a frictionless slider, since there's no moment of inertia to store spin energy.

Recall One-line summary of the traps

Add both KEs (never mix pictures), alone rules the race, mass and radius cancel, and the link only exists while rolling without slipping.