Conservation of angular momentum

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conservation of angular momentum in a system where a body is rotated with no external tangential forces acting on it. The initial angular momentum is defined as Lo = Ro * Vo * m, where Ro is the constant radius, Vo is the tangential velocity, and m is the mass. When the string is pulled, the velocity is expressed as V(t) = (Vo * Ro) / r(t), assuming no torque is applied. The tangential acceleration is derived as a(t) = (-Vo * Ro) / (r(t)^2) * r'(t). It is concluded that while external forces can affect r'(t), they can be added to the calculated acceleration if they do not change r'(t).
MechatronO
Messages
30
Reaction score
1
Imagine a body that is attached to a massless string and then rotated in such a manner that no external forces like gravity acts on the body in tangential direction.

The body now has the angular momentum with respect to the axis of rotation

Lo = Ro * Vo * m

Where

Ro = constant initial radius of rotation
Vo = constant initial tangential velocity
m= mass of the body

If the string is pulled in with respect to time, and no torque is applied with respect to the axis of rotation would the velocity be this, according to the law about conservation of angular momentum?

V(t)=\frac{Vo*Ro}{r(t)} ?



And would the tangential acceleration then be

a(t)=\frac{-Vo*Ro}{(r(t)^2)}*r(t)' ?

Where

r(t)´ = the derivate of the radius of rotation with respect to time

If so, could this acceleration be added directly to external forces that is causing tangential acceleration?

The purpose is forwarding a regulator that will control the acceleration of a robot.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks right.
External forces could change r'(t), but if they do not, I would expect that you can add them.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top