Calculating Change in Length of Rubber Tube

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves calculating the change in length of a rubber tube when a ball is spun in a circular motion. The context includes concepts from mechanics and material science, specifically relating to centripetal force and elastic properties of materials.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between centripetal force and elastic force, attempting to derive the change in length of the rubber tube using given parameters. Various calculations and interpretations of the angular velocity are discussed, with some participants questioning the accuracy of their results.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of different calculations and interpretations of the problem. Some participants have provided their results, leading to a range of values for the change in length, but there is no explicit consensus on the correct answer. The discussion includes attempts to clarify the use of angular velocity and its impact on the calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential confusion regarding the angular velocity, specifically whether it should be considered as 1 revolution per second or converted to radians. There are also mentions of calculation errors and the need for careful consideration of the parameters involved.

huskydc
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
A 100 g ball is attached to a rubber tube and is spun around in a circle at a rate of one revolution every second. A force of 0.5 N is required to stretch the tube 1.0 cm.

If the original length is L = 1.0 m, what will be the change in length of the rubber tube when the ball is revolving?

It was given as a hint that centripetal force is equal to elastic force:

F_c=mass *length*omega^2,

where length is now the stretched length, that is,
length= L+delta L.

The elastic force is equal to
F_el=k*delta L.

first, I found k to be 50. but I plugged in k to the above equation and tried to find delta L. as .002 , but it's incorrect, hints?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I get delta L = about 0.09m.

I see nothing wrong with your approach. You must have a calculation error.
 
0.09 is also incorrect...
 
Last edited:
I found delta L to be .002 m as well.
Here's what I did.

Fc=m*(dL+1)*w^2
Fs=k*dL

.5 N=k*.01 m
k=50 N/m

Fc=Fs
m*(dL+1)*w^2=k*dL
m*w^2=k*dL - m*w^2*dL
m*w^2=dL*(k-m*w^2)
dL=(m*w^2)/(k-m*w^2)

When you plug in the values (m=.1 kg; w=1 rps; k=50 N/m) the answer is dL=.1/49.9
So dL = .020 m
 
Last edited:
I also get 0.09 (0.086) m...

[tex]\Delta L = \frac{mL \omega^2}{k-m\omega^2}\approx 0.09 m[/tex]
 
Last edited:
=( , i tried them all, none of them works...
 
I agree with Gokul; the answer is about 0.09m. What makes you think that this answer is wrong?

zwtipp05 said:
I found delta L to be .002 m as well.
Here's what I did.
...
dL=(m*w^2)/(k-m*w^2)

When you plug in the values (m=.1 kg; w=1 rps; k=50 N/m) the answer is dL=.1/49.9
So dL = .020 m
[itex]\omega = 2 \pi[/itex], not 1. (It's measured in radians.)
 
the answer turns out to be .0857m, I guess we'er all too caught up in the big picture and totally forgot about the omega being 2pi, thanks
 

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K