Angular momentum conservation of two point masses

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conservation of angular momentum in a system with two point masses, one fixed and the other rotating in a circle. When the rotating mass is pulled closer to the fixed mass, its tangential speed must increase to conserve angular momentum, despite the force being applied orthogonally to the velocity vector. The force has a forward component along the spiral path, which contributes to the increase in speed. If the force were applied perpendicularly to the spiral path, angular momentum would not be conserved, leading to a different outcome. Ultimately, the instantaneous center of rotation shifts, affecting the dynamics of the system.
adoion
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Lets suppose we have 2 point masses one fixed and imoveable the other rotateing in a perfect circle around the first imoveable one with constant speed.

Regardless of vich force is keeping the rotating mass on its circular orbit.
It may be a string or gravitational force or whatever.

The velocity of the rotating mass will allways be tangential to the circle the mass follows but the velocity vector intensity is the same as stated above (constant speed).

Now let's pull the rotating mass closer to the fixed mass, shorten the radius.
The conservation of angular momentum states that the the tangential spped of the rotating object should increase

If we aply a force orthogonal to the velocity vector to shorten the radius then this force could never ever change the intensity of the velocity.
Yet the conservation of angular momentum states different.

What is going on
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you are pulling the object in using a central force then that force is perpendicular to the object's original circular path. But it is not perpendicular to the object's spiral path as it is reeled in. The object speeds up because the force has a forward-pointing component along its path.

If, instead, you were pulling the object in using a force that was perpendicular to the object's spiral path then that force could not be centrally directed. In this case, angular momentum would not be conserved because the force would be an unbalanced external torque on the system. The circling object would retain its original speed, but would lose angular momentum.
 
The spiral motion happends because the tangential velocity vector gets a component perpendicular to it because of the pulling force and the new vector is composed of the tangential component vitch remains constant and the ortogonal component vitch increases as long as rhe force is acting.

So there is no non-orthogonal component of the force on the tangential part of the velocity vector.

When force comes to hold the orthogonal component of the velocity dies out and one is left with the same velocity vector as at the begining.
Tangential to the now again circular path and same in magnitude as before.

So what is going on
 
the tangential velocity vector gets a component perpendicular to it because of the pulling force

No. When it's moving in a spiral the instantaneous centre about which the object is rotating is NOT the center of the spiral. The instantaneous centre of rotation moves. See diagram. In this case the point is rotating around a point to the right of the centre of the spiral. This means that a force acting towards the centre of the spiral has a forward component.
 

Attachments

  • spiral.jpg
    spiral.jpg
    7.1 KB · Views: 481
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