Rotational Inertia of a Rod Falling and Slipping

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the moment of inertia of a rod that is falling and slipping, specifically focusing on the conditions under which the center of mass experiences vertical motion. Participants explore the implications of different axes of rotation and how these relate to the moment of inertia during the rod's motion.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the choice of rotation axis for calculating the moment of inertia, questioning whether it matters which axis is selected. Some express confusion about the relationship between translational and rotational motion, while others seek clarity on how to relate the speed of the center of mass to the rotational speed of the rod.

Discussion Status

There is ongoing exploration of the relationships between various physical quantities, including moment of inertia and angular velocity. Some participants have provided insights and connections to energy conservation, while others are still grappling with the implications of their findings.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem involves a rod on a frictionless surface and that the center of mass is expected to fall straight down, raising questions about the assumptions made regarding motion and forces acting on the rod.

e(ho0n3
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
0
A rod of mass M and length L, initially standing, falls in such a way that the center of mass experiences only vertical motion. What is the moment of inertia of the rod?

I picture the rod as having both translational and rotational motion since it's rotating about an axis through the CM which is moving vertically downward. I can also picture the rod as rotating about the end touching the surface, which is moving horizontally. Now, to find the moment of inertia, I need to pick a rotation axis. Which one of these axes should I pick?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It doesn't matter which one you pick as far as I can tell, it's simply that the moment of inertia about one axis is different from the moment of inertia about another.
 
e(ho0n3 said:
A rod of mass M and length L, initially standing, falls in such a way that the center of mass experiences only vertical motion. What is the moment of inertia of the rod?
The moment of inertia is a property of the rod, not of its motion. I don't understand the point of this question.
 
I asked this since I needed some insight on the following problem: A thin uniform stick of mass M and length L is positioned vertically, with its tip on a frictionless table. It is released and allowed to slip and fall. Determine the speed of its center of mass just before it hits the table.

There is a picture that comes with this problem which basically depicts the rod standing and just before it hits the table, and from it I've concluded that the center of mass does not displace horizontally, but vertically only.

Anywho, I can solve this problem using conservation of mechanical energy. When I set up the equation, the rotational kinetic energy term involves the moment of inertia and this of course led me to my original question.
 
e(ho0n3 said:
There is a picture that comes with this problem which basically depicts the rod standing and just before it hits the table, and from it I've concluded that the center of mass does not displace horizontally, but vertically only.
Since all the forces on the rod act vertically, the center of mass must fall straight down.
Anywho, I can solve this problem using conservation of mechanical energy. When I set up the equation, the rotational kinetic energy term involves the moment of inertia and this of course led me to my original question.
Right. But I assume you can calculate the rotational inertia of a rod about its cm. The trick is to relate the speed of the cm to the rotational speed of the stick.
 
Doc Al said:
The trick is to relate the speed of the cm to the rotational speed of the stick.
Yes of course! Hmm...Somehow [itex]\omega \propto v[/itex], but that's all I can think of. This is giving me a headache. Argh...
 
e(ho0n3 said:
Yes of course! Hmm...Somehow [itex]\omega \propto v[/itex], but that's all I can think of. This is giving me a headache. Argh...


well, here's how [itex]\omega \propto v[/itex], to get you started

[itex]y[/itex] will be the distance that the stick has fallen

therefore:
[tex]\cos \theta = \frac {\frac{L}{2}-y}{\frac {L}{2}}[/tex]

which gives:
[tex]\dot{y}=\frac{L}{2}\sin\theta \ \dot{\theta}[/tex]

or, in your [itex]\omega \propto v[/itex] terms:
[tex]v=\frac{L}{2}\sin\theta \ w[/tex]

then use this relation with energy considerations to solve for the motion.
btw, [itex]I=\frac{1}{12}ML^2[/itex]

if i remember correctly, this was an example in my K&K book at MIT
 
DarkEternal said:
well, here's how [itex]\omega \propto v[/itex], to get you started

[itex]y[/itex] will be the distance that the stick has fallen

therefore:
[tex]\cos \theta = \frac {\frac{L}{2}-y}{\frac {L}{2}}[/tex]

which gives:
[tex]\dot{y}=\frac{L}{2}\sin\theta \ \dot{\theta}[/tex]

or, in your [itex]\omega \propto v[/itex] terms:
[tex]v=\frac{L}{2}\sin\theta \ w[/tex]

then use this relation with energy considerations to solve for the motion.
btw, [itex]I=\frac{1}{12}ML^2[/itex]

if i remember correctly, this was an example in my K&K book at MIT
Got the answer already, but thanks anyways.
 
DarkEternal said:
therefore:
[tex]\cos \theta = \frac {\frac{L}{2}-y}{\frac {L}{2}}[/tex]

which gives:
[tex]\dot{y}=\frac{L}{2}\sin\theta \ \dot{\theta}[/tex]
Almost. It should be:
[tex]\sin \theta = \frac {\frac{L}{2}-y}{\frac {L}{2}}[/tex]
Which gives:
[tex]\dot{y}= - \frac{L}{2}\cos\theta \ \dot{\theta}[/tex]
(The minus sign is just an artifact of how the angle is defined.)

This makes sense, since when the cm hits the floor, the angle is zero and [itex]\omega[/itex] is maximum.
 
  • #10
Doc Al said:
Almost. It should be:
[tex]\sin \theta = \frac {\frac{L}{2}-y}{\frac {L}{2}}[/tex]
Which gives:
[tex]\dot{y}= - \frac{L}{2}\cos\theta \ \dot{\theta}[/tex]
(The minus sign is just an artifact of how the angle is defined.)

This makes sense, since when the cm hits the floor, the angle is zero and [itex]\omega[/itex] is maximum.


well, that depends on how you define [itex]\theta[/itex]. Since I used [itex]I=\frac{1}{12}ML^2[/itex], [itex]\theta[/itex] will be the angle that the stick makes with the vertical as it is falling as measured from the center, not the angle it makes with the horizontal as measured from the floor. in this case, [itex]\theta[/itex] will be maximum at the end of the problem.
 
  • #11
DarkEternal said:
well, that depends on how you define [itex]\theta[/itex]. Since I used [itex]I=\frac{1}{12}ML^2[/itex], [itex]\theta[/itex] will be the angle that the stick makes with the vertical as it is falling as measured from the center, not the angle it makes with the horizontal as measured from the floor. in this case, [itex]\theta[/itex] will be maximum at the end of the problem.
D'oh! You're perfectly correct. My bad. :rolleyes:

(But [itex]\omega[/itex] is the same no matter how you define [itex]\theta[/itex].)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K