European Journal of Physics

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- (Invited) Less Is More: Thermoelectric
On the ball on a string demonstration of angular Performance Enhancements in Polymer-
Free Semiconducting Single-Walled
momentum conservation Carbon Nanotube Networks
Andrew John Ferguson, Brenna Norton-
Baker, Rachelle Ihly et al.
To cite this article: Andrea Sacchetti 2023 Eur. J. Phys. 44 065004 - Paperclip Physics: anatomy of a
competition

- Enzyme Engineering via Rationally

Designed Intermolecular Interactions:
Applications towards Bioelectrocatalysis
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Yingning Gao, Jie Zhu, Jyun-Liang Lin et
al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 177.37.250.13 on 21/03/2024 at 16:35

 European Journal of Physics
Eur. J. Phys. 44 (2023) 065004 (12pp) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/acf6b9

On the ball on a string demonstration of

angular momentum conservation
Andrea Sacchetti
School of Engineering, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern
Switzerland (FHNW), Windisch (AG), Switzerland

E-mail: andrea.sacchetti@fhnw.ch

Received 12 June 2023, revised 8 August 2023

Accepted for publication 1 September 2023
Published 3 October 2023

Abstract
The ‘ball on a string’ demonstration is a common tool used in physics edu-
cation to illustrate the concept of conservation of angular momentum. How-
ever, various confounding factors can cause significant deviations from the
idealized case, particularly under extreme conditions or when using low-
stiffness pivots or high coefficients of friction. These factors include air
resistance, contact friction at the pivot point, the mass of the ball and string,
the angle of the string due to gravity, and the wobbling of the pivot point due
to the centrifugal forces acting on it. In this work, we critically review by
means of accurate simulations the adequateness of the ‘ball on a string’
demonstration in view of these confounding factors and provide recommen-
dations for instructors on how to maximize the educational value of the
demonstration while minimizing potential confusion for students. Our analysis
suggests that a stiff pivot and avoiding extreme conditions are key to obtaining
results that are in good agreement with the idealized case. We also caution
instructors against using the demonstration without at least mentioning the
confounding factors, as this may lead to a questionable understanding of the
underlying physics principles.

Keywords: classroom demonstrations, angular momentum, idealization

(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)

Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the
author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.

© 2023 The Author(s). Published on behalf of the European Physical Society by IOP Publishing Ltd
0143-0807/23/065004+12$33.00 Printed in the UK 1
Eur. J. Phys. 44 (2023) 065004 A Sacchetti

1. Introduction

Instructors of physics are quite familiar with the role that approximations, simplifications, and
idealizations play in physics education [1–6]. These techniques help to simplify complex
systems and make them more accessible to students, allowing them to solve problems that
would otherwise be beyond their mathematical abilities. However, it is important to consider
the extent to which these idealizations are realistic and how real-world systems may differ
from these idealizations. The use of idealizations is common in basic physics, such as
ignoring friction, air resistance, and the mass of strings and springs, and considering most
objects as ‘point particles’ [3]. While introductory physics courses often include a laboratory
component, the level of analysis required to account for complicating factors may be limited
[7]. In fact, learning to identify and employ such idealizations is arguably an important part of
learning how to ‘think like a physicist’ [3, 7–9].
Conservation of angular momentum (CoAM) is one of the pillars of classical mechanics
and builds along with conservation of energy and of linear momentum the framework of
conservation laws and thus of variational principles. As it is often the case for many topics in
introductory physics, the effect of this fundamental law is qualitatively shown in classrooms
by means of simple demonstrations [2, 4–7, 9, 10] like a person spinning on a turntable with
weights in their hands and changing their rotational speed by means of stretching and pulling
in their arms. The vectorial nature of the law is usually shown instead by means of holding a
rapidly-spinning bicycle wheel while sitting on a rotating chair and changing the rotation axis
of the wheel. Another common, though perhaps less widespread, demonstration is the ball on
a string (BoaS) which consists of spinning a small mass bound with a taut string around a
pivot point and reducing the length of the string to induce an increase in the spinning speed of
the mass [11] as shown in figure 1 [12]. In this work, we critically review the adequateness of
this demonstration in view of the numerous confounding factors that can cause, under realistic
conditions, a significant deviation of its quantitative behavior compared to the simple idea-
lized case.
The typical treatment of the BoaS in an undergraduate textbook is apt to allow numerous
simplifications and idealizations in order to make the solution possible for first-year students.
These idealizations include not only ignoring obvious real-world losses due to friction and
drag, but simplifying various features of the physical system. A real-world ball on a string
departs from its textbook idealization in the following ways:
1. The ball and string will experience air resistance, which increases as the speed increases;
2. The string experiences contact friction at the pivot point, which will also increase with
speed as a result of the growing centrifugal pull;
3. The ball is not a point mass, and its physical moment of inertia may be important when
the string’s length is small;
4. The string is not massless (though this is likely a very small factor);
5. The string is not perfectly horizontal, due to the downward force of gravity, and the angle
of the string changes as its length decreases, meaning that the actual length of the string
and the radius of the circle are not quite the same.
6. The central support is not infinitely rigid and can ‘wobble’ when the ball is moving fast,
meaning that the ball is not an isolated object and not the only part of the system with
angular momentum.
The various sources of loss are all ignored in the traditional introductory textbook treat-
ments [12], which raises the question of how good the various approximations are, and under
what conditions they hold. For example, if we start with a golf ball on a 1 m string rotating at

2
Eur. J. Phys. 44 (2023) 065004 A Sacchetti

Figure 1. Typical schematization of the ball on a string demonstration as a sample

problem of an introductory physics book [12].

10 m s−1 (i.e. less than 2 rps) and reduce the radius to 10 cm we find that the final speed of the
ball predicted by the idealized CoAM treatment is 100 m s−1 which corresponds to a spinning
rate of 9500 rpm. Such unreasonably large speeds predicted by reducing the radius to very
small values has even led one internet commenter to doubt the validity of analyzing any
system in terms of CoAM entirely [13]. Leaving aside the obvious incorrectness of this
conclusion, one shall not underestimate the resulting obvious finding that the demonstration
could bring about such an extreme level of confusion in a novice to the point of making them
questioning the validity of one of the pillars of classical mechanics. It is thus natural to
question its pedagogical effectiveness at least to some degree. In the following, we provide
insights as to why the casual use of this demonstration could be confusing and even detri-
mental for beginners unless care is taken to introduce the various sources of error and their
relative importance. Our aim is to provide a more nuanced view of the BoaS demonstration,
highlighting both its pedagogical value and limitations.

2. Methods

We consider a ball of mass m and radius rm spinning with speed v at a distance r from a pivot
point. The tether is pulled in at constant speed u from the initial distance r1 to the final one r2 .
Correspondingly the speed changes from the initial value v1 to the new, to be determined level
v2. The following assumptions are applied:

1. The pull on the tether results in a Coriolis-like force acting on the ball: FCor = m uv /r.
2. A friction force acts at a distance rp from the pivot. This is modeled with a friction
coefficient m and considering only the centripetal force: Ffr = m mv 2 /r. Its effect on the
ball is scaled by rp /r because of the reduced lever.
1
3. Drag force in the common form Fdr = 2 C r A v 2 acts on the ball too. Here C is the drag
coefficient, r is air density, A = prm2 is the ball’s cross surface.

3
Eur. J. Phys. 44 (2023) 065004 A Sacchetti

Figure 2. Schematic model of the ball on a string demonstration including a non-fixed

pivot point.

4. The wobbling of central pivot is modeled with a mass ma attached to the fixed center by a
spring of constant k.
5. The central point, the mass m and the mass ma are on the same line, i.e. the motion has
only one degree of freedom.
The resulting model is schematically represented in figure 2. This final assumption results
in a variable displacement of the mass ma a by an amount ra given by the centripetal force Fctr :
ra = Fctr /k = mv 2 /kr. The effect of this displacement on the ball can be modeled considering
the loss of angular momentum in favor of the mass ma. It can be easily shown that the
resulting Coriolis force on the ball gets modified such that an additional term emerges (see
below for the detailed calculation):
m a ra2 uv
Fpiv = 2m ( 1)
m a ra + mr r
2 2

We can factor in all these forces in a discrete-time simulation to obtain the time dependence
of the resulting speed v by means of numerically integrating the resulting differential equation
for which no trivial analytic solution is available:
dv F uv 2m a ra2 uv v2 CrA 2
= tot = - - m rp - v (2)
dt m r m a ra + mr r
2 2 r 2 2m
We can thus in particular obtain the final value v2 as shown in the ‘Results’ section.

2.1. Model for non-fixed pivot

The calculation of the modified Coriolis force is performed by means of several approx-
imations assumed to obtain an iterative picture that could be used as a model for beginners,
although a somewhat difficult one. We determine the dragging effect of the mass ma on the
ball in absence on other forces and transfer the result to the general case. This is not perfectly
accurate, but it makes sense within the general idea of considering the individual dissipative
contributions independently and the exact treatment is provided in section 2.2 anyway.
Additionally, we neglect the finite size of the ball regarding its moment of inertia and we only
consider its effect on the centrifugal force neglecting that of the mass ma. Finally, we recall
that r is the distance between the masses (s. figure 2) but we assume that r is much larger than
ra at any moment so that r + ra can be replaced with r. Since we are only dealing with the
interplay between the two bodies, these approximations allow a computation based on
instantaneous CoAM between the ball of mass m at distance r and the pivotal mass ma at
distance ra :
dL
=0 ( 3)
dt

4
Eur. J. Phys. 44 (2023) 065004 A Sacchetti

d ( Iw ) d (m r 2w + m a ra2 w)
= =0 (4)
dt dt
dr dw dw
2mr w + m r2 + m a ra2 =0 (5)
dt dt dt
where we explicitly neglected the time dependence of ra = m w 2r /k: dra /dt » 0. We can
now notice that dr /dt = -u by definition and finally express the result in terms of the
acceleration dv /dt exploiting dw /dt = d (v /r )/dt = (1/r ) dv /dt - v /r 2 dr /dt:
dr dw dw
2mr w + m r2 + m a ra2 =0 (6)
dt dt dt
dw
(m r 2 + m a ra2 ) -2mr wu=0 (7)
dt
1 dv v v
+ 2 u=2m u (8)
r dt r m r + m a ra2
2

dv uv r2 uv
+ =2m (9)
dt r m r + m a ra r
2 2

dv uv ra2 uv
= - 2 ma (10)
dt r m r + m a ra r
2 2

The first term in equation (10) is the Coriolis-like force acting on the ball and the second term
is the ‘drag’ induced by the presence of the mass ma at distance ra. We can thus finally write
down the corresponding ‘effective’ force caused by it:
ra2 uv
Fpiv = 2 m m a (11)
m r 2 + m a ra2 r

2.2. Full wobble treatment

A complete treatment of the wobble-effect requires a combination of all forces as the presence
of the additional inertia represented by the mass ma alters in principle the effects of friction
and air-drag as well. The only effects that are still neglected in this advanced treatment are
gravity and the string (assumed inextensible, massless, and of zero size). The disadvantage of
this advanced analysis is that the various contributions get tangled together and it becomes
impossible to accurately analyze their contribution individually. Moreover, such a complex
treatment is mathematically more advanced and thus even less suitable for beginners. The best
approach to this analysis is to rely on energetic considerations, namely we equate the change
in energy E with the power P produced by the various forces in action:
dE
=P (12)
dt
t
E (t ) = E 0 + ò0 P dt (13)

5
Eur. J. Phys. 44 (2023) 065004 A Sacchetti

We can first write down the total energy of the system:

1 ⎡2 2 1
E= mrm + m (r + ra )2 + m a ra2 ⎤ w 2 + k ra2 (14)
2 ⎣5 ⎦ 2
with its initial value:
1 ⎡2 2
E0 = mrm + mr 2⎤ w 20 (15)
2 ⎣5 ⎦
where we assumed that ra is initially equal 0. For the power, the following forces must be
considered: the centripetal force Fcm acting on the mass m, that Fca acting on the mass ma , the
friction force Ffr , and the drag force Fdr
Fcm = m w 2 (r + ra ) , Fca = m a w 2 ra ,
1
Ffr = m (Fcm + Fca ) , Fdr = C r A w 2 (r + ra )2 (16)
2
We can obtain the corresponding powers by means of multiplying by the respective velocities
u, ua = dra /dt , vp = wrp, and v = w (r + ra ):
dra
Pcm = m w 2 (r + ra ) u , Pca = m a m w 2 ra ,
dt
1
Pfr = - m (Fcm + Fca ) wrp, Pdr = - C r A w 3 (r + ra )3 (17)
2

P = Pcm + Pca + Pfr + Pdr (18)

The energy balance finally leads to:
1 ⎡2 2 1 t

2 ⎣5
mrm + m (r + ra )2 + m a ra2 ⎤ w 2 + k ra2 = E 0 +
⎦ 2 ò0 P dt (19)

which we can solve for ω:

t
ò
1
2 ⎛E 0 + P dt - 2 k ra2 ⎞
w = ⎝ 0 ⎠ (20)
2
2
mr 2
m + m ( r + ra ) 2 + m r2
a a

For the complete solution we need though the time dependence of ra which we can extract
from the corresponding equation of motion:
d2ra
ma = - k ra + Fcm + Fca (21)
dt 2
This can be solved numerically with the initial conditions ra = 0 and dra /dt = 0.

2.3. Pivot stiffness

Representing the central pivot as a hollow tube, its elastic constant k is mainly given by the
bending of the tube itself. This can be modeled with the Euler–Bernoulli equation [14]:
d 2w
t = - EI (22)
dx 2
where t is the applied torque, E is the Young’s modulus of the tube material, I = z 2 dx dy ò
is the second moment of the area [15], and w (x ) is the deformation of the beam as a function

6
Eur. J. Phys. 44 (2023) 065004 A Sacchetti

of the position x along its length. For a tube of inner and outer radius r1 and r2 the area
moment reads
p
I = (r24 - r14) (23)
2
Assuming a constant curvature k = -t /EI = d2w /dx 2 = const. for the beam’s deformation,
the displacement Dw at the free end satisfies:
l l 1
Dw = ò0 ò0 k dx dy =
2
k l2 (24)

with l length of the tube and this equates to

l2 l3
Dw = - t = -F (25)
2EI 2EI
where we made use of the fact that t = F l, assuming that the force F acts on the free end of
the tube. Finally, writing the displacement in an elastic form
F
Dw = (26)
k
we get an expression for the elastic constant:
2EI
k= (27)
l3
As examples of the typical resulting values, we consider a tube made of steel
(E = 2.00 ´ 1011 N m-2 ) with inner radius r1 = 0.0015 m and outer radius
r2 = 0.0025 m. For tube length values l of 0.20 m and 0.02 m the resulting elastic constant
amounts to 2700 N m-1 and 1.4 ´ 106 N m-1, respectively.

3. Results and discussion

In the following, we define standardized values assumed for the relevant parameters unless
otherwise stated. The ball has a mass of 0.050 kg and a radius of 0.025 m which corresponds
to a typical golf ball. The pivot is assumed to be a tube of radius 0.002 mm with an elastic
constant k = 2000 N m-1. This value corresponds to the strength of an arm flexing by 0.05 m
when holding a mass of 10 kg and it is comparable with the above estimate for the longer
tube. The mass of the arm is set at ma = 2.0 kg. A stiffer pivot can be achieved by means of
fixing the tether-guiding tube to a massive support instead of hand-holding it.
Friction at the central pivot is modelled with a coefficient m = 0.500 acting on a radius
rp = 0.002 m. The drag coefficient C is set at the standard value for a sphere (C = 0.47) and
air density is assumed to be r = 1.2 kg m-3. The parameters values are summarized in table 1
and are used to simulate several scenarios according to equation (2). These entail a basic
simulation where the string is pulled from 1.0 m down to 0.5 m within 1.0 s (figure 3) and an
‘extreme’ one where the string is shortened down to 0.1 m within 1.0 s (figure 4). The latter
has been also simulated for a ‘stiff’ pivot with k = 1.4 ´ 106 N m-1 as calculated above
(figure 5) or with a ‘fast’ pull-in happening in 0.1 s (figure 6). Figure 7 represents, as a term of
comparison, an ‘ideal’ simulation with very low friction (m = 0.05), negligible drag
(r = 0.012 kg m-3), and very stiff pivot (k = 1.4 ´ 106 N m-1). Finally, the basic simula-
tion with full treatment of the wobble-effect according to equations (20) and (21) is shown in
figure 8. In all simulations, the resulting angular velocity is compared with that predicted by a
simple CoAM-only model for reference.

7
Eur. J. Phys. 44 (2023) 065004 A Sacchetti

Figure 3. Typical demonstration r = 1.00 m  0.50 m, pull-in time: 1.0 s.

Figure 4. Extreme demonstration r = 1.00 m  0.10 m, pull-in time: 1.0 s.

The simulation of figure 3 does not deviate significantly from the idealized scenario but it
is also worth mentioning that the typical radius reduction that is used upon demonstrating the
effect can easily be larger than just 50% and often resembles more the conditions of figure 4
(i.e. radius down to 10%). In this case, major losses are observed as the ball gets close to the
pivot point. Down to a radius reduction of 60%, only 20% of the angular momentum is
dissipated, compared to 90% angular momentum lost when the radius is reduced to 10% of
the initial value. It is also apparent that losses are dominated by the wobble of the support
while air-drag appears less significant. With k = 2000 N m-1 (corresponding to an arm
bending by 5 cm when holding a weight of 10 kg) we achieve a reasonable wobble for the
handheld situation of up to 5 cm and the final rotation is around 1200 rpm.
Assuming a stiff pivot (i.e. for very large values of k ) as in figure 5, losses are less
pronounced and dominated by friction. Dissipation can be further reduced by means of
pulling in faster: for instance, with a pull-in time of 0.1 s like in figure 6, we can retain 90% of
the original angular momentum even if the radius is reduced to 10% of the initial value. This
is similar to what can be obtained upon simulating an ideal environment with very low
friction m = 0.05 and near vacuum r = 0.012 kg m-1 with a pull-in time of 1.0 s as in
figure 7. It is worth noticing that the configuration that retains 90% of the angular momentum
by means of a fast pull-in, while conceptually feasible, is likely almost impossible to realize in
practice due to the resulting massive strain on the tether (F = m v 2 /r = 7100 N ). This would
either result in tether failure or a practical impossibility of acting the pull-in sufficiently fast as
the required power approaches the value Fu = 6400 W.

8
Eur. J. Phys. 44 (2023) 065004 A Sacchetti

Figure 5. Extreme demonstration r = 1.00 m  0.10 m, stiff (Wobble

radius ra < 1 mm ).

Figure 6. Extreme demonstration r = 1.00 m  0.10 m, stiff, pull-in time reduced

from 1.0 s to 0.1 s.

Figure 7. Extreme demonstration r = 1.00 m  0.10 m, ideal (stiff

k = 1.4 ´ 10 6 N m-1, frictionless m = 0.05, in vacuum r = 0.012 kg m-3).

The full-scale simulation of figure 8 is additionally able to catch vibrations at the pivot point
that are indeed realistically expected. Nevertheless, the overall result is impressively similar to
that obtained with the simpler model of figure 3, a finding that we could confirm on the other

9
Eur. J. Phys. 44 (2023) 065004 A Sacchetti

Figure 8. Typical demonstration r = 1.00 m  0.50 m, full wobble.

Table 1. Standardized values assumed for the simulations parameters unless otherwise
stated.
Quantity Symbol Value Unit
Mass of the ball m 0.050 kg
Initial speed v1 10.00 m s−1
Initial tether length r1 1.00 m
Friction coefficient at pivot m 0.500
Drag coefficient C 0.47
Air density r 1.2 kg m−3
Radius of the ball rm 0.025 m
Radius of the pivot rp 0.002 m
Mass of the pivot (arm) ma 2.0 kg
Elastic constant of the pivot k 2000 N m−1

simulations as well. It is also worth mentioning that, while formally more correct, this simulation
strategy is more prone to numerical instabilities than the simpler approach of equation (2).

4. Conclusion

The ‘ball on a string’ demonstration is a common way for instructors to illustrate the concept
of conservation of angular momentum in introductory physics courses. Our analysis has
shown that there are several confounding factors that can significantly affect the behavior of
this system, particularly under realistic conditions, e.g. when the reduction of the string is
shortened to less than 50% of its initial length or the pull-in is not fast enough. One of the
main take-home messages from this study is that the conditions under which the ‘ball on a
string’ demonstration is performed must be carefully considered because the resulting
deviations from the idealized case can be quite significant. For example, our simulations show
that the effect of the wobbling of the pivot point can be quite pronounced when the elastic
constant of the pivot is low and the pull-in time is slow. Similarly, the effect of friction at the
pivot point becomes relevant when the coefficient of friction is high and the pull-in time is
slow. Finally, air resistance also plays a role in the ‘ball on a string’ demonstration, although,

10
Eur. J. Phys. 44 (2023) 065004 A Sacchetti

quite surprisingly, its effect is generally less pronounced than the other factors. There could
be more subtle effects connected to the central mass lagging behind the ball that cannot be
captured by the current model from figure 2 and would require an even more complex
treatment with two degrees of freedom like in [11]. We believe though that this level of
analysis would be out of scope because it is certainly beyond the reach of introductory
physics students and our work already shows satisfactorily how the simple lossless model can
be arbitrarily off and in what order the possible confounding factors contribute to the
discrepancies.
Given these confounding factors, it is questionable to use the ‘ball on a string’ demon-
stration without at least mentioning them to students. Instructors should be aware of these
factors and consider the extent to which the idealized case deviates from the real-world
system. It is also worth noting that the hierarchy of the confounding factors can be somewhat
counterintuitive. For example, our simulations show that the effect of the wobbling mass at
the pivot point is generally more pronounced than the effect of friction or air-drag, even
though these two are typically the first causes that come to mind when discussing the
observed deviations from the ideal case. This highlights the importance of carefully con-
sidering the specific conditions of the demonstration, as the relative importance of the con-
founding factors can vary depending on the specific parameters of the system.
Our analysis suggests therefore that a stiff pivot is of paramount importance in the ‘ball on
a string’ demonstration, as it minimizes the losses due to the wobbling mass. A fast pull-in
also contributes significantly to reducing the deviations from the idealized case, particularly
when combined with a low elastic constant for the pivot or a non-negligible friction coeffi-
cient. In the light of these findings, demonstrations and experiments that are based on
symmetric mass distributions, as opposed to the ‘ball on a string’ demonstration, may be more
appropriate for illustrating the concept of conservation of angular momentum, as they allow
students to focus on the key physics principles without being distracted by the confounding
factors that can arise in more complex systems like the one discussed here. It is also important
to note that the ‘ball on a string’ demonstration is just one example of how approximations,
simplifications, and idealizations are used in physics education. There are many other
examples of idealized systems that are commonly used to illustrate key physics principles,
and it is important for instructors to carefully consider the extent to which these idealizations
are realistic and how real-world systems may differ from them. By doing so, instructors can
help students develop a deeper understanding of the underlying physics principles and better
appreciate the limitations of the idealized systems that are used to illustrate them.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank J Mandlbaur for the stimulating discussions that led to the idea of this
work and D Morgan for the useful and critical input about the simulations and the manuscript.

Data availability statement

This work contains only simulations, no measured data. The data that support the findings of
this study are available upon reasonable request from the authors.

11
Eur. J. Phys. 44 (2023) 065004 A Sacchetti

ORCID iDs

Andrea Sacchetti https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5907-6603

References

[1] Mestre J P and Docktor J L 2021 The Science of Learning Physics: Cognitive Strategies for
Improving Instruction (World Scientific) p 210
[2] Miller K, Lasry N, Chu K and Mazur E 2013 Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9 020113
[3] Winkelmann J 2023 Sci. Educ. 32 277
[4] Abdul-Razzaq W and Golubović L 2013 Phys. Educ. 48 42
[5] Crouch C, Fagen A P, Callan J P and Mazur E 2004 Am. J. Phys. 72 835
[6] Milner-Bolotin M, Kotlicki A and Rieger G 2007 J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 36 45
[7] Roth W M, McRobbie C J, Lucas K B and Boutonné S 1997 J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34 509
[8] Sirnoorkar A, Mazumdar A and Kumar A 2017 Eur. J. Phys. 38 015703
[9] Namhee K, Wilson McVay M and Srinivasa A R 2017 ASEE Annual Conf. and Exposition
[10] Buncick M C, Betts P G and Horgan D D 2001 Int. J. Sci. Educ. 23 1237
[11] Bleher S 2022 Analysis and applications of a ball and string in uniform circular motion preprint
available on ResearchGate
[12] Serway R A and Jewett J W 2013 Physics for Scientists and Engineers (Cengage Learning) 9th
edn ch 11 p 316
[13] Mandlbaur J 2022 unpublished
[14] Gere J M 2004 Mech. Mater. (Thomson Learning) 6th edn ch 9 p 599
[15] Pilkey W D 2002 Analysis and Design of Elastic Beams (Wiley) p 15

12