A Leaning Plank. Find where it looses contact.

  • Thread starter Thread starter warjunkie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Contact
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a uniform plank of length L leaning against a vertical wall, with the goal of determining the height of the plank's head above the ground at the moment it loses contact with the wall. The discussion centers around the forces acting on the plank and the conditions under which it may lose contact.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the forces acting on the plank, including gravitational force and normal forces from the wall and ground. Some question whether the plank can lose contact due to the absence of horizontal forces.
  • There are discussions about the relationship between vertical and horizontal accelerations and how they affect the motion of the plank.
  • Some participants suggest using energy conservation and Lagrangian mechanics to analyze the situation, while others express confusion about the conditions for losing contact.
  • Several participants seek clarification on the conceptual understanding of why the plank would lose contact with the wall.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various approaches being proposed. Some participants have provided insights into the mechanics involved, while others are still grappling with the conceptual aspects of the problem. There is no consensus yet on the solution or the reasoning behind the plank losing contact.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention constraints such as the lack of friction and the need to consider the plank as a single object in motion. There is also a reference to the problem being part of extra credit work, which may influence the level of engagement and urgency in finding a solution.

  • #31
Abdul Quadeer said:
Let the length of the plank be 2l (for simplicity) and let it make an angle θ with the horizontal when normal force by the vertical wall is 0.

1. Energy Conservation-

ω2 = 3g/2l (sinΦ - sinθ), where Φ is the initial angle of the base with horizontal.

Correct so far, but I but I can not follow you after. I write the details to get the angular acceleration

The angular acceleration is obtained by derivation of

ω2=3g/(2L) (sinΦ - sinθ). *

2ω dω/dt=-3g/(2L)(cosθ)ω --->dω/dt=-3g/(4L)cosθ. **

N=0 means that the horizontal acceleration of the centre of mass is zero. The x coordinate of the CM is xcm=L(cosθ), vcm=-Lω(sinθ) and

acm=-L*(ω2cosθ +dω/dt sinθ ).***

acm=0 means that dω/dt =-ω2cotθ, the same you got.

Substituting (*) for ω2 and (**) for dω/dt in (***) for the horizontal acceleration, you get the angle when the contact is lost.

I do not understand the signs in your torque method. Show what you consider positive directions. Also, dω/dt is missing from your equation for N2. And you got an expression (*) for ω2 already, what are these different new ones?

ehild
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
ehild said:
Substituting (*) for ω2 and (**) for dω/dt in (***) for the horizontal acceleration, you get the angle when the contact is lost.

No need of any Langrangian or torque equations?

ehild said:
I do not understand the signs in your torque method. Show what you consider positive directions. Also, dω/dt is missing from your equation for N2. And you got an expression (*) for ω2 already, what are these different new ones?

ehild

I took upward direction positive. dw/dt = α in my equations.
I solved for α from the torque equation and Newton's law to find one more expression for α and hence ω.

btw I got the height as 2h/3 not h/3
 
  • #33
Abdul Quadeer said:
No need of any Langrangian or torque equations?

No need any of them, just get the accelerations dω/dt and ax by derivation with respect to time.

Abdul Quadeer said:
I took upward direction positive. dw/dt = α in my equations.
I solved for α from the torque equation and Newton's law to find one more expression for α and hence ω.


Check the signs in your equations. But the torque method is quite complicated.

Abdul Quadeer said:
btw I got the height as 2h/3 not h/3

2h/3 is correct. Great work!

First I wrote up the equations of motion for the translation of the CM and for the rotation around it. It was quite complicated. Then I used the Lagrangian to find the equation of motion in terms of the angle. But I had to solve a differential equation to get the angular speed. The easiest way was using conservation of energy.

ehild
 
  • #34
Thanks to all for this wonderful effort. I am really thankful.Never could have possibly got to that without your help.
Special thanks to ehild.:smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
30
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K