Angular momentum for these strange nonplanar gears?

Thread starter FallenApple
Start date Dec 22, 2016
Tags

Angular Angular momentum Gears Momentum Strange

AI Thread Summary

The discussion centers on the angular momentum of nonplanar gears, specifically three spinning rings. As these rings rotate, the angular momentum vector lacks a clear direction due to the object's symmetry. Participants suggest that the angular momentum can be determined by vector addition of the individual rings' momentum. The complexity arises from the nonplanar nature of the gears, making the analysis intriguing. Understanding this angular momentum behavior is essential for applications involving such gear systems.

Dec 22, 2016

FallenApple

I wonder what would the angular momentum vector look like for these gears.

As it rotates, there is no clear direction on where the angular momentum vector is pointing. This object is symmetric.

Here's the video about these.

Physics news on Phys.org

Dec 23, 2016

A.T.

Science Advisor

FallenApple said:

As it rotates, there is no clear direction on where the angular momentum vector is pointing.

It's just 3 spinning rings, simply add their vectors.

Last edited: Dec 23, 2016

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...

View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?

View full post »

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...

View full post »