Accelerationg of rotating mass *along* the axis of rotation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the acceleration of a rotating mass along its axis of rotation and whether this constitutes a change in its state of motion. It confirms that applying an unbalanced force in the direction of the axis of rotation results in linear acceleration without additional resistance from the moment of inertia. The conversation clarifies that the force must act through the center of mass to prevent tilting of the rotation axis. The participants also touch on the relationship between linear and angular acceleration when forces are applied at different points. Understanding these dynamics is essential for analyzing the motion of rotating bodies, such as Earth.
birulami
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
Says Wikipedia: "The moment of inertia is a measure of an object's resistance to any change in its state of rotation".

Now consider a rotating mass m that I would like to accelerate along its axis of rotation by a. Does this count as a "change in its state of motion"? Will it resist the acceleration more that just F=m\times a. And if yes, how much?

Thanks,
Harald.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
birulami said:
Says Wikipedia: "The moment of inertia is a measure of an object's resistance to any change in its state of rotation".

Now consider a rotating mass m that I would like to accelerate along its axis of rotation by a. Does this count as a "change in its state of motion"?
yes. Newton's laws.
Will it resist the acceleration more that just F=m\times a.
no. this is a linear acceleration - regular inertia is all you need.

Lets be sure I understand you: something is freely rotating about its center of mass - the rotation takes place in the x-y plane so the angular momentum points in the +z direction ... the z axis is the axis of rotation.

To accelerate the object in the +z direction, you apply an unbalanced force in the z direction through the center of mass. az=Fz/m is correct.

An arbitrary force applied to a free body will have a component through the center of mass giving rise to a linear acceleration by Fr=ma and another perpendicular to that giving rise to an angular acceleration by rFt=Iα
 
Yes, that was what I was after. The m\times a should have been m\cdot a. And yes, the force should point at the center of mass as to not tilt the axis of rotation.

Thanks,
Harald.
 
Since m is a scalar, and a is a vector, it should be just m\vec{a} ... don't worry about it ;)

I could have said that, for an arbitrary force F at position vector r from the center of mass, then \vec{r}\wedge\vec{F}=I\vec{\alpha} and \vec{r}\cdot\vec{F} = m\vec{a}

You realize that the Earth is a rotating body being accelerated by an unbalanced force acting through it's center of mass?

Anyway, knowing how a general vector works on a rigid body should help you now.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top