Roller Coaster Analysis

Case 1
1. At the topmost point, in the limiting case the normal should be zero.
N + mg = mv 2 /r
Since N = 0
Therefore g=v 2 /r
Final kinetic energy = 0.5mv 2 = 0.5mrg
Change in kinetic energy = 0.5mrg = mg(ΔH) = mgh -2mgr
Giving h = 2.5r
r = 11cm
Therefore h (theoretical) = 27.5cm
The height required, obtained experimentally = 33.9cm
The height required experimentally was greater than theoretically calculated since in theoretical
calculations we ignored energy loses through friction between wheels and track and viscous drag. To
overcome these energy loses we supplied extra energy by increasing release height during experiment.
2. When we release the cart from slightly lesser height we observe that the cart loses contact
momentarily with the track close to the topmost point and comes into contact with it again.
We know that after losing contact the cart is influenced only by gravitational field of earth, so it must
follow a parabolic path after losing contact. One can see that if we release the cart from lesser height
than the required height then it follows a parabola which intersects with the circular track at a lower
height. But when we do this the cart cannot successfully return on the track as it falls with wrong
orientation due to rotation. As we bring the release point closer to the required height, the parabola
shrinks and intersects the track at a height closer to the topmost point. This causes the time of flight to
decrease hence the angle by which the cart gets rotated is small so the cart intersects with the track at
suitable orientation so that it can again go on the track.
When the release height is slightly lesser than the required height then one can use small angle
approximations for cosθ and sinθ.
Using condition N = 0
N + mgcosθ = mv 2 /r
Since N = 0
Therefore gcosθ=v 2 /r
Range = 2v 2 cosθsinθ/g
Range = 2rcos 2 θsinθ
Using small angle approximation,
Range = 2rθ
Maximum height = v 2 sin2 θ/2g
Maximum height = rcos θ sin2 θ/2
Using small angle approximation,
Maximum height = rθ2 /2
This shows that if we release from slightly less height than required, then it passes close to topmost
point of track and comes into contact with the track nearly symmetrically.
3. We can approximate the given oval to be an ellipse. For an ellipse we know that the radius of curvature
at the end of major axis is given by b2 /a where a and b have their usual meanings. During the
experiment we observed that the cart loses contact at the topmost point.
N + mg = mv 2 /r
Since N = 0
Therefore g=v 2 /r
Since r = b2 /a
Therefore gb2 /a = v 2
Using energy conservation,
mgb2 /2a = mg(ΔH) = mg(h-2a)
Giving h = 2a+(b2 /2a)
The experimentally required height was slightly greater than this probably due to energy loses due to
friction and air drag.
Since the height of the topmost point that we took for oval path was more that’s why during
experiment we required more height for oval path than the circular one.
If we assume 2r = 2a then even the theoretically predicted value for circular track (it is a good guess
that the experimental value will be more than this) exceeds the one obtained experimentally for the
oval.
This was expected even theoretically since b<a so the required height for ellipse should be lesser than
2.5a or 2.5r i.e. lesser than the required height for circular track.
Case 2
1. During the experiment we observed that the cart did not lose contact with the track before the
topmost point for any height used by us.

Mgsinθ-N = mv 2 /r {tanθ is the slope of the normal at the point and r is the radius of curvature at that
point}
Since N = 0
Therefore rgsinθ=v 2
Using energy conservation,
mg(h-rsinθ) = 0.5mv 2
Giving h = 1.5rsinθ
If 2h/3 exceed rsinθ then the cart loses contact.
The product rsinθ depends on the curve. The experimental observation suggests that the product rsinθ
is always greater than 2h/3 for the given height range used by us, in the part of track before the
topmost point.
2. It loses contact at the top of the hill. Assuming the topmost point to be part of the semicircle with
radius equal to the height of that point, we get,
Mg-N = mv 2 /r
Since N = 0
Therefore g=v 2 /r
Using energy conservation,
mg(h-r) = 0.5mv 2
Giving h = 1.5r
In the experiment it was slightly more than this probably due to friction and air drag.
3. When we release the cart from a lesser height, it fails to reach the topmost point as expected. It comes
back and performs damped oscillations in the valley near the hill. This is because when we release the
cart from a lesser height, we supply it with energy lesser than required for escaping the potential
barrier due to the height of the hill. The oscillations were damped probably due to friction and air drag.
Case 3
1. -ΔK.E. = 0.5m(v12 − v22 ) = work done by friction = µmgx
Giving µ = 0.5(v12 − v22 )/gx
So we can obtain µ by plotting Δv 2 /2g against x.
2. The slope of the graph is almost zero as expected since for a given distance the work done by friction is
same, implying Δv 2 to be a constant
Case 4
1. If we release the cart from heights greater than certain heights than we observe that the curved path
won where as below that height the linear path won.

By mean value theorem we can find a point on the curved path such that its slope at that point is equal
to the slope of the line. The speed is only a function of y coordinate due to energy conservation.

If we consider same dy then the one which has greater slope takes lesser time so if we take points
above the point at which slopes become equal then the curved path has a greater slope so the curved
path gets an advantage of time during these points but if we take points below this point the linear
path gets an advantage. When we take greater heights then the time advantage the curve path gains
exceeds the one which the linear one gains whereas for lesser heights the opposite happens hence
explaining the observation.