Angular Momentum- Conserved or not?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conservation of angular momentum in a system involving a vertical and horizontal disc. The initial assertion is that angular momentum is conserved about the vertical axis due to the absence of external torques, but this is challenged by the presence of potential external torques from the rigid attachment of the horizontal axle. The conversation highlights confusion regarding the conditions under which angular momentum can be considered conserved, particularly in different directions. Participants debate the implications of the system's configuration and the nature of the attachment between the components, leading to questions about the validity of the initial assumptions. Ultimately, the complexity of the system's dynamics and the role of external forces complicate the straightforward application of angular momentum conservation.
palaphys
Messages
235
Reaction score
12
Homework Statement
A uniform disc of mass M and radius R is rotating freely about its central vertical axis with angular speed w0. Another disc of mass m and radius r is free to rotate about a horizontal rod AB. Length of the rod AB is 𝐿 ( < 𝑅 ) and its end A is rigidly attached to the vertical axis of the first disc. The disc of mass m, initially at rest, is placed gently on the disc of mass M as shown in figure. Find the time after which the slipping between the two discs will cease. Assume that normal reaction between the two discs is equal to mg. Coefficient of friction between the two discs is μ.
Relevant Equations
Tau= Ialpha , L=Iw
1756056945987.webp


Consider the diagram shown above.
I came up with two ideas to solve this: i) I do not see any external torques about the vertical axis in this problem. so, angular momentum is conserved about this axis. (is it?)
ii)the standard way, that is, writing newton's second law for rotation, and applying the condition for slipping to cease, i.e the velocity of the contact point is zero.

let me show my working for the (ii)nd idea first:
assume after time t slipping ceases and pure rolling starts, and at that time angular velocity of horizontal disc is ω and the angular velocity of vertical disc is ω ′.
##
\begin{align}
(1)\quad & r\omega' = L\omega \\[6pt]
(2)\quad & \omega = \omega_0 - \frac{\mu m g L}{\tfrac{1}{2} M R^2}\, t \\[6pt]
(3)\quad & \omega' = \frac{L\omega}{r} = 0 + \frac{\mu m g r}{\tfrac{1}{2} m r^2}\, t \\[12pt]
& \text{From (2) and (3):} \\[6pt]
& \frac{L}{r}\left( \omega_0 - \frac{2 \mu m g L}{M R^2}\, t \right)
= 2\frac{\mu m g r^2}{m r^2}\, t \\[12pt]
\implies\quad
& t = \frac{M R^2 L \omega_0}{2 \mu g \left(M R^2 + m L^2\right)}
\end{align}
##

as expected, this yields the correct answer. however, the first method has some confusion.
first off, IF at all angular momentum is conserved, there will be a component of it which is NOT in the z direction(that is ## L_{about cm}##), for the smaller vertical disc.(using the fact that ##
L = L_{\text{cm}} + L_{\text{about cm}}##)

but if we ignore this and conserve angular momentum only about the z axis, I get the answer

##\begin{align}
t = \frac{M R^2 L \omega_0}{2 \mu g \left(M R^2 + 2m L^2\right)}
\end{align}##

which is incorrect for some reason.

Please help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I do not think that the angular momentum of the whole system about the vertical axis is conserved because of this:
palaphys said:
rigidly attached
 
palaphys said:
IF at all angular momentum is conserved, there will be a component of it which is NOT in the z direction
I assume you meant "if all angular momentum…".
We can take it that the vertical axle is constrained to be vertical, so we cannot assume there is no horizontal external torque on it.
As @wrobel points out, we are told the horizontal axle is attached rigidly to the vertical axle. It is not entirely clear, but there seems no purpose in that information unless we are also to infer that the vertical axle cannot rotate on its own axis. Thus, we cannot exclude an external vertical torque on it either.
 
haruspex said:
I assume you meant "if all angular momentum…".
We can take it that the vertical axle is constrained to be vertical, so we cannot assume there is no horizontal external torque on it.
As @wrobel points out, we are told the horizontal axle is attached rigidly to the vertical axle. It is not entirely clear, but there seems no purpose in that information unless we are also to infer that the vertical axle cannot rotate on its own axis. Thus, we cannot exclude an external vertical torque on it either.
I have another question:
If angular momentum is conserved, then it would be conserved in all directions. But in the horizontal direction, the initial angular momentum is zero, and the final angular momentum is non zero (## L_{aboutcm}## of the vertical disc).
Why is this? Am I right in the first place?
 
palaphys said:
I have another question:
If angular momentum is conserved, then it would be conserved in all directions. But in the horizontal direction, the initial angular momentum is zero, and the final angular momentum is non zero (## L_{aboutcm}## of the vertical disc).
Why is this? Am I right in the first place?
As with linear momentum, it can be conserved in one direction but not in another. With only gravity acting, horizontal linear momentum is conserved but not vertical linear momentum.
But as I thought I explained, in this question you cannot assume angular momentum is conserved in any particular direction. To keep the vertical axle from rotating about its own axis there must be an external vertical torque, and to keep it from rotating about a horizontal axis there must be an external horizontal torque.
 
haruspex said:
But as I thought I explained, in this question you cannot assume angular momentum is conserved in any particular direction. To keep the vertical axle from rotating about its own axis there must be an external vertical torque, and to keep it from rotating about a horizontal axis there must be an external horizontal torque.
ok that makes sense. but I have a question.
IF there was no external torque (hypothetical) then is it valid to conserve momentum as I have said?
 
If the rod AB can rotate freely about the vertical axis then the projection of the angular momentum of the whole system on the vertical axis is conserved.
Another task is calculate this projection correctly
 
wrobel said:
If the rod AB can rotate freely about the vertical axis then the projection of the angular momentum of the whole system on the vertical axis is conserved.
But the rod AB is rigidly attached to the vertical axis of the first disc as you pointed out in post #2. I find the assembly of this system confusing.
  • We have the first disc initially rotating with angular speed ##\omega_0##. OK.
  • We have rod AB rigidly attached at point A. This means that the free end of the rod at point B rotates with angular speed ##\omega_0##. OK.
  • We have a second small disc initially at rest. OK, but at rest with respect to what? Presumably the center of the rotating first disc.
  • We are told that this second disc "is placed gently on the disc of mass M as shown in figure." Not OK because point B is moving and disc 2 is not. For gentle placement, i.e. without acceleration, the velocity of the center of the smaller disc must match the velocity of point B when placement occurs.
  • Therefore the presumption that disc 2 is at rest with respect to the center of disc 1 is inappropriate and we must assume that disc 2 is at initially at rest with respect to point B.
  • However, if the center disc 2 is not moving relative to point B as required for "gentle" placement, then there will be no slipping between discs because the center of disc 2 and the point of contact with disc 1 have matched velocities. So what's the point of this problem?
It is entirely possible that I have misinterpreted something here. Can someone point it out? Thanks.
 
The original statement of the problem is that the rod AB can not rotate so there must be a torque that keeps it at rest. I don't see any ambiguities in the original statement.
 
  • #10
wrobel said:
I don't see any ambiguities in the original statement.
The ambiguity is in the interpretation of "rigidly attached". It could mean
  1. That the "rigid" connection is through a bearing so that the rod can rotate freely at A about the axis
  2. That the "rigid" connection is made by gluing the rod with superglue to the axis at point A in which case the rod rotates as a "rigid body" with the axis.
 
  • #11
kuruman said:
The ambiguity is in the interpretation of "rigidly attached". It could mean
  1. That the "rigid" connection is through a bearing so that the rod can rotate freely at A about the axis
  2. That the "rigid" connection is made by gluing the rod with superglue to the axis at point A in which case the rod rotates as a "rigid body" with the axis.
I see the wording issue a little differently.
In usual terminology , an "axis" is not a physical object, any more than is a line or plane; you cannot attach something to it rigidly. So presumably they mean "axle". But there are two ways of mounting a disc on an axle. The disc might be able to rotate around the axle or, perhaps more commonly, the axle might rotate within its supports and be rigidly attached to the disc.
For the question to work as intended we needed the "disc spins on axle" arrangement.
 
  • Like
Likes nasu and Lnewqban
  • #12
haruspex said:
For the question to work as intended we needed the "disc spins on axle" arrangement.
Let me get this straight.
We start with the rod at rest. Point A of the (massless) rod is welded onto the (massless) axle. At point B a small disc of mass ##m## and radius ##r## is free to rotate about the rod.

The rod-disc assembly is held above the platform which has mass ##M##, radius ##R## and is rotating freely about the axle with angular speed ##\omega_0##.

At some point in time the axle with the rod-disc assembly is gently lowered onto the rotating platform so that the disc comes in contact with it. Since the assembly has, by assumption, the mass of the disc ##m##, the normal force between the surface of the platform and the disc is ##mg##.

OK, that makes sense. Thanks.
 
  • #13
It is interesting to answer the same question assuming that the rod AB can rotate freely about the vertical axis
 
  • #14
wrobel said:
It is interesting to answer the same question assuming that the rod AB can rotate freely about the vertical axis
Isn’t that what the OP did in post #1?
 
  • #15
In #1 the rod AB is fixed relative the lab frame. The system has 2 degrees of freedom.
I suggested a system with 3 degrees of freedom.
 
  • #16
wrobel said:
In #1 the rod AB is fixed relative the lab frame.
Yes, that seems to be what the problem statement intended, but the OP's attempt (i) did not take it as fixed.
 
  • #17
haruspex said:
OP's attempt (i) did not take it as fixed.
I do not know what OP means. I do not see equations of motion for the system of 3 degrees of freedom and I do not see a derivation of formula (7)
 
  • #18
wrobel said:
I do not know what OP means. I do not see equations of motion for the system of 3 degrees of freedom and I do not see a derivation of formula (7)
OP stands (at PhysicsForums) for either Original Post (but I prefer "post #1”) or Original Poster.
In post #1, the OP wrote:
"i) I do not see any external torques about the vertical axis in this problem. so, angular momentum is conserved about this axis."
Regardless of what equations were obtained from that, it seems to me this reading equates to the variation you suggest.
 
Back
Top