Angular Momentum and velocity problem

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a rod of mass 'm' and length 'l' lying on a smooth horizontal surface, which is struck at its center by a particle of mass 'm' moving with velocity v_{0}. The discussion centers around determining the velocity of one end of the rod after the impact, with a focus on the conservation of linear and angular momentum.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the conservation of angular momentum about different points, questioning the assumptions made regarding the pivot point of the rod. There are attempts to apply both linear and angular momentum conservation principles, with some participants expressing confusion about the implications of the impact occurring at the center of mass of the rod.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations of the conservation laws. Some guidance has been offered regarding the assumptions about pivot points and the implications of the impact location, but no consensus has been reached on the correct approach or outcome.

Contextual Notes

There are discussions about the validity of calculating angular momentum about a fictitious point and the implications of the rod's motion post-impact. Participants are also considering the differences in scenarios where the mass strikes the end of the rod versus the center.

konichiwa2x
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Hi,

A rod of mass 'm' and length 'l' is lying on a smooth horizontal surface. A particle of mass 'm' is moving with a velocity v_{0} strikes the rod at the centre and sticks to it. What is the velocity of end A after impact? [Solution: \displaystyle \frac{v_{0}}{2}]

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/2803/angmom1si.png
[/URL]

Here is what I did:

Considering both the particle and the rod as the system, no external torque acts. Therefore, angular momentum can be conserved about any point.
Conserving angular momentum about A,

\displaystyle mv_{0}\frac{l}{2} = I_{A}\omega

\displaystyle mv_{0}\frac{l}{2} = (\frac{ml^2}{3} + {\frac{ml}{4}}^2)\omega

\displaystyle \omega = \frac{6v_{0}}{7l}

Velocity of end A = \displaystyle \frac{\omega}{(\frac{l}{2})} = \frac{12v_{0}}{7l^2}

What am I doing wrong?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hints: Conservation of linear momentum gives you one part. Conservation of angular momentum gives you the other part. What was the total angular momentum of the system before impact? What was the total linear momentum before impact?
 
I have done exactly that. The linear momentum before impact is mv_{0} and after impact is 2mv where v = v_{0}/2. I did conserve angular momentum (refer my original post). Is there anything wrong in what I did? please help.
 
konichiwa2x said:
Is there anything wrong in what I did?
You incorrectly assumed that the rod pivots about one end. It doesn't. The angular momentum about the center of mass of the system remains zero. (And the angular momentum about point A remains mv_{0}l/2.)
 
Doc Al said:
You incorrectly assumed that the rod pivots about one end. It doesn't. The angular momentum about the center of mass of the system remains zero. (And the angular momentum about point A remains mv_{0}l/2.)
This one is confusing me. Using conservation of linear momentum, and noting that the strike is at the cm of the rod, seems to clearly imply no rotation, and thus, the system, ..all parts of it.. moves forward at V_o/2.
But when using conservation of angular momentum, I have the same question as the poster, I think: Why is it acceptable to calculate the initial angular momentum of the particle ((mV_o(r)) about some ficticious point A, about which there is no fixed pivot point, but when calculating the final angular momentum, it is not OK to calculate the angular momentum of the rod about that point, which leads to an erroneus result for omega? (and which, BTW, was incorrectly calculated using an incorrect formula...using v = wr, not v=w/r, yields v = 3V_o/8 at the c.m, which is still the wrong(?) answer ).
 
There is no angular momentum before the impact, and none after the impact with the center of mass of the rod. It's a more interesting question when the mass hits one end of the rod and sticks -- I'm having a harder time visualizing the zero angular momentum aspect of that at the moment...
 
PhanthomJay said:
Using conservation of linear momentum, and noting that the strike is at the cm of the rod, seems to clearly imply no rotation, and thus, the system, ..all parts of it.. moves forward at V_o/2.
Realize that in noting the implication of "the strike is at the cm of the rod" you are implicitly applying conservation of angular momentum.

But when using conservation of angular momentum, I have the same question as the poster, I think: Why is it acceptable to calculate the initial angular momentum of the particle ((mV_o(r)) about some ficticious point A, about which there is no fixed pivot point, but when calculating the final angular momentum, it is not OK to calculate the angular momentum of the rod about that point, which leads to an erroneus result for omega?
The erroneous result is not due to using point A as a reference point; it's due to assuming that the rod pivots about one end. In general, the angular momentum of an object about some point A is the sum of:
(a) the object's angular momentum about its center of mass
(b) the angular momentum of the object's center of mass about point A​
(and which, BTW, was incorrectly calculated using an incorrect formula...using v = wr, not v=w/r, yields v = 3V_o/8 at the c.m, which is still the wrong(?) answer ).
Again, I think you are assuming the rod pivots about one end.

berkeman said:
It's a more interesting question when the mass hits one end of the rod and sticks -- I'm having a harder time visualizing the zero angular momentum aspect of that at the moment...
In that case, the angular momentum of the system about its center of mass is not zero. The angular momentum about point A is zero, but that just means that the two terms indentified above are equal and opposite.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
335
Views
16K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K