Angular acceleration, velocity, momentum of a door?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the angular acceleration, velocity, momentum, and the time it takes for a door to close when pushed by a force. The door is modeled as a uniform rod, and various scenarios are analyzed, including pushing at the middle versus the edge. Participants share their calculations for angular acceleration, angular momentum, and the time taken for the door to close, with some discrepancies noted in the results. There is also a focus on deriving equations for the tangential force supplied by the hinges based on the distance from the hinges to the point of force application. The conversation highlights the importance of using the correct moment of inertia and torque formulas for accurate results.
  • #51
SammyS said:
Well, it looks like a typo to me in the statement of the problem, as was the l=2 rather than l/2 .
image.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
statii said:
On c.) could the time be 2,53s (also got t= -1,26), used abc formula with α=10 and ω=2? Used the inertia formula that StavangerFinest did: I = (ML^2)/3.
in c i get 0.395s
coffeemanja said:
Sorry, have been busy. I still have 40 in a . Alpha =( ΣF*L/2)/ (1/3*M*(L/2)^2) is my formula. Since it is a uniform rod with an axis through the end and the push is in the middle... I saw answer 10 somewhere... So now I'm puzzled
you are using the wrong value of l, you have to put in the total width of the door in the equation, it doesn't matter where she pushes the door, it only matters when calculating the torque.
 
  • #53
Haveagoodday said:
in c i get 0.395s

you are using the wrong value of l, you have to put in the total width of the door in the equation, it doesn't matter where she pushes the door, it only matters when calculating the torque.
Yeah, got that already. Thanks anyway!
 
  • #54
Haveagoodday said:
in c i get 0.395s
It's about double that. Please post your working.
 
  • #55
haruspex said:
It's about double that. Please post your working.
yeah, i recalculated and got 0.785s.
 
  • #56
Haveagoodday said:
yeah, i recalculated and got 0.785s.
Excellent.
 
  • Like
Likes Haveagoodday
  • #57
haruspex said:
It's about double that. Please post your working.
Can I post mine?
Θf=Θi+ωi*t+0.5αt^2
90=0+2t+0.5*10t...and the result is far of the one you say is correct...
 
  • #58
coffeemanja said:
Can I post mine?
Θf=Θi+ωi*t+0.5αt^2
90=0+2t+0.5*10t...and the result is far of the one you say is correct...
you have to use this equation t= θf-θi/wf-wi
and you also have to use radians instead of degrees.
 
  • #59
coffeemanja said:
Can I post mine?
Θf=Θi+ωi*t+0.5αt^2
90=0+2t+0.5*10t...and the result is far of the one you say is correct...
What is the are value you putting for alpha here? What units do you have for omega?
 
  • #60
Haveagoodday said:
you have to use this equation t= θf-θi/wf-wi
wf-wi? Did you mean that?
 
  • #61
Haveagoodday said:
you have to use this equation t= θf-θi/wf-wi
you
haruspex said:
wf-wi? Did you mean that?
yes
 
  • #62
haruspex said:
What is the are you putting for alpha here? What units do you have for omega?
That one was closest to theta. 90 degrees.
That is the formula for rotational motion...if alpha is a constant
 
  • #63
Haveagoodday said:
you

yes
I've never seen that equation, and if you were to apply it you would get infinity. w does not change after the force on the door ceases.
 
  • #64
coffeemanja said:
That one was closest to theta. 90 degrees.
That is the formula for rotational motion...if alpha is a constant
You did not answer either question. What number are you plugging in for alpha, and what units is your number for omega expressed in?
 
  • #65
haruspex said:
You did not answer either question. What number are you plugging in for alpha, and what units is your number for omega expressed in?
Alpha is 10 rad/s...agh...I see now! Let me redo here...
 
  • #66
haruspex said:
I've never seen that equation, and if you were to apply it you would get infinity. w does not change after the force on the door ceases.
but i
coffeemanja said:
That one was closest to theta. 90 degrees.
That is the formula for rotational motion...if alpha is a constant
dont forget that you have to use radians instead of degrees. But still it is apparently wrong to use that equation.
 
  • #67
Haveagoodday said:
but i
Yes?
 
  • #68
haruspex said:
I've never seen that equation, and if you were to apply it you would get infinity. w does not change after the force on the door ceases.
well it is kind of like this equation v= dx/dt, and if you rearrange it you get t=dx/dv, and same goes for rotational motion equation w=dθ/dt, at least i think so.
 
  • #69
I got 0.795 s
 
  • #70
Haveagoodday said:
well it is kind of like this equation v= dx/dt, and if you rearrange it you get t=dx/dv.
No, you get dt=dx/v. It is certainly not the case that t=dx/dv.
 
  • #71
coffeemanja said:
I got 0.795 s
Good, if a little inaccurate. (But why does everyone insist on decimals? What's wrong with ##\pi/4##?
 
  • Like
Likes SammyS
  • #72
haruspex said:
Good, if a little inaccurate. (But why does everyone insist on decimals? What's wrong with ##\pi/4##?
Wait... It's pi/2. I do not know, may be because we are used to use SI units..
 
  • #73
coffeemanja said:
Wait... It's pi/2. I do not know, may be because we are used to use SI units..
did you use this equation Θf=Θi+ωi*t+0.5αt^2 ?
 
  • #74
Haveagoodday said:
did you use this equation Θf=Θi+ωi*t+0.5αt^2 ?
Yes!
 
  • #75
coffeemanja said:
Yes!
what are the values you put in?
 
  • #76
Have somebody come to a solution for e)?
 
  • #77
Haveagoodday said:
Have somebody come to a solution for e)?
I assume you are just looking for a yes/no answer. There's a risk your question might be interpreted as a request for a solution to be posted.
 
  • #78
Haveagoodday said:
Have somebody come to a solution for e)?
I think somebody posted an answer for part (e).

I don't know if that counts as a solution.
 
  • #79
Haveagoodday said:
Have somebody come to a solution for e)?
Here's a starting point:

F- Fh = M* a ("h" being in a subscript of F, and "a" being "a" of centre of mass)

I could post whole my work, but I believe It's better for you that you figure it out yourself. But this starting point should be more than enough.
Let me know the result you get in e) and thereby f)
 
  • #80
e) Fh=F(1-3d/(2L))
f) 2L/3
 
  • #81
How did you get C) 0.795 s or pi/4
 
  • #83
jimjames said:
How did you get C) 0.795 s or pi/4
As I said, 0.795 is rather inaccurate.
 
  • #84
haruspex said:
As I said, 0.795 is rather inaccurate.
It is, but where we study they insist on decimal numbers. It is inaccurate, but the main reason why they do it is so we can use our knowledge about significant digits. You'd be surprised over how many people make silly mistakes on significant digits.
 
  • #85
StavangerFinest said:
It is, but where we study they insist on decimal numbers. It is inaccurate, but the main reason why they do it is so we can use our knowledge about significant digits. You'd be surprised over how many people make silly mistakes on significant digits.
No, it's more inaccurate than it should be for a three digit decimal. Calculate pi/4.
 
  • #86
haruspex said:
No, it's more inaccurate than it should be for a three digit decimal. Calculate pi/4.
Oh yeah... 0,785s...Didn't notice that they had nine instead...Sorry, my bad
 
  • #87
Read the book from page 308 to 314, you will understand the physics not just for one question but for all related questions.
 
  • #88
Bambisu said:
Read the book from page 308 to 314, you will understand the physics not just for one question but for all related questions.
The thread is two years old. I doubt StavangerFinest is still interested.
 
  • #89
Heia Anders
 
Back
Top