Is it possible for a vertical rod balancing on a table to lose contact by striking the top of the rod?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rob2024
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of a vertical rod balancing on a table losing contact with the table after striking its top. The subject area includes concepts of rigid body dynamics and acceleration.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of rigid body motion, questioning the accelerations of different points on the rod. Some consider the effects of spinning and frictionless constraints, while others reflect on the physical laws governing the motion.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants offering various perspectives on the assumptions made about acceleration and rigidity. Some have acknowledged misunderstandings, while others suggest that the problem may allow for the lower mass to lose contact under certain conditions.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of frictionless conditions and the rigidity of the rod, which are central to the assumptions being debated. The complexity of the motion following the loss of contact is also noted.

Rob2024
Messages
39
Reaction score
6
Homework Statement
An upright rod of length ##l## with negligible mass is initially at rest on a frictionless horizontal table. Two identical masses are attached to the top and the bottom of the rod. When the top of the rod is given a large horizontal velocity ##v_0##, the bottom can lose contact with the table at the same moment.What's the minimum speed ##v_0## that allows this to happen?
Relevant Equations
$$F = ma$$
The question I have is that if this is even possible?

Assume it's possible, the CM acceleration is ##g## downward. Then the top end of the rod has an additional downward acceleration ##a_c## while the bottom end of the rod has an upward acceleration ##a_c##. This will make the two ends of the rod having different acceleration in magnitude which contradicts with the given the rod is rigid. It suggests it's not possible for the system to lose contact with the table.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rob2024 said:
Assume it's possible, the CM acceleration is ##g## downward. Then the top end of the rod has an additional downward acceleration ##a_c## while the bottom end of the rod has an upward acceleration ##a_c##. This will make the two ends of the rod having different acceleration in magnitude which contradicts with the given the rod is rigid. It suggests it's not possible for the system to lose contact with the table.
If a rod spins about its midpoint, each end is accelerating towards the centre.
 
Rob2024 said:
Assume it's possible, the CM acceleration is ##g## downward. Then the top end of the rod has an additional downward acceleration ##a_c## while the bottom end of the rod has an upward acceleration ##a_c##. This will make the two ends of the rod having different acceleration in magnitude...
Yes

Rob2024 said:
...which contradicts with the given the rod is rigid.
Rigidity imposes a condition on the velocities of two points of the rod, not the accelerations.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rob2024
Rob2024 said:
This will make the two ends of the rod having different acceleration in magnitude which contradicts with the given the rod is rigid.
I just tossed a pen in the air, giving it an end over end spin. The laws of physics did not prevent it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
I get it now. My assumption about acceleration was incorrect.
 
I would assume that the bottom of the rod can slide along a horizontal line without friction. Then I would answer the problem's question by considering a reaction of this ideal constraint.
 
wrobel said:
I would assume that the bottom of the rod can slide along a horizontal line without friction. Then I would answer the problem's question by considering a reaction of this ideal constraint.
It is stated as frictionless, but it makes no difference anyway.
 
  • Agree
Likes   Reactions: SammyS
That's a pretty little problem. Yes, it is possible for the lower mass to lose contact with the table. The motion right after that is a lot more complicated to work out. But recall your formula for centripetal acceleration. And note that at the t=0 moment you have a lot of really cool simplification to your angles and velocities and such. And that the force a rigid massless rod applies has to be parallel to the rod.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
2K