Angular acceleration in terms of angular velocity

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between angular acceleration and angular velocity in the context of pendulum motion. The user seeks clarification on the equation α = ω², which seems to be a conversion factor for radial acceleration but lacks a clear derivation in their textbook. The conversation highlights the derivation of angular frequency for a physical pendulum, showing how it relates to simple harmonic motion (SHM) through the equation τ = -Mglθ. The connection between angular frequency and the moment of inertia is established, emphasizing the need for a deeper understanding of the underlying principles. The discussion concludes that a more detailed explanation or proof is necessary to fully grasp the transition to the square root relationship in the angular frequency formula.
Flipmeister
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
I've been working on problems that deal with pendulums and I've noticed that a few of my answers require me to find the angular velocity, frequency, period of a pendulum. I managed to get the answer right every time, but there's a step that I didn't understand, namely converting angular acceleration to angular velocity by what seems to be using this relationship:

\alpha=\omega^2

Where in the heck does this come from? :confused: The book kind of skips this step in the examples and doesn't prove it at all, even though it proves just about every other equation it mentions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That looks like a conversion factor for radial acceleration.

F=m * v2/r = m * a(rad)

so a(rad) is proportional to w2.

You'd need to show the example in detail for anyone to say more than that.
 
Here's how the book derives ##w=\sqrt{\frac{Mgl}{I}}##, the angular frequency of a physical pendulum:

\tau=-Mgd=Mglsin\theta

If we restrict the angle to being small (<10 degrees), as we did for the simple pendulum, we can use the small-angle approximation to write

\tau=-Mgl\theta (eq 14.49)

From Chapter 12, Newton's second law for rotational motion is ##\alpha=\frac{d^2\theta}{dt^2}=\frac{\tau}{I}## where I is the object's moment of inertia about the pivot point. Using eq. 14.49, we find

\frac{d^2\theta}{dt^2}=\frac{-Mgl}{I}\theta

Comparison with eq. 14.32 (##\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=-\frac{k}{m}x##) shows that this is again the SHM equation of motion, this time with angular frequency

\omega=2\pi f=\sqrt\frac{Mgl}{I}

Something happens to get to that last step that doesn't add up for me... Why is Mgl/I square rooted?
 
It's justified here by comparison to an earlier expression for SHM Eq 14:32. In that section you will probably find a proof that f=1/2*pi sqrt(k/m)

There's a fair explanation in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_harmonic_motion

It's just that the solution of that differential equation is a cosine with √k/m (you can prove that to yourself by substituting it back)
 
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top