Angular momentum in a half rotating body

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conservation of angular momentum in a system oscillating back and forth rather than rotating fully. It questions whether the classical formula L=mvr applies when an object oscillates between 0 and Pi, suggesting that the radius must change to conserve angular momentum. The consensus is that conservation of angular momentum does not hold in this scenario due to the need for continuous energy or torque to switch directions. Additionally, a non-radial force is required for oscillation, complicating the conservation principles. Overall, the dynamics differ significantly from those of a uniformly rotating body.
DiracPool
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
515
If we look at the classical formula for the conservation of angular momentum, L=mvr, we can easily see that, if the radius of a rotating body is shortened, its velocity must increase in order to conserve L, and vice-versa.

Again, the classical conception we have of this formula is its application to a spinning or rotating body, rotating in a unidirectional clockwise or counterclockwise fashion.

My question is this: Does this same formula hold for an object that is not going fully around a unit circle, say, but it oscillating back and forth through half of the circle. In other words, say it oscillates back and forth between 0 and Pi, confined to only the first and second quadrants of the circle. How would the dynamics of the system change in this circumstance? You would think that, even though you can assign a specific frequency to the back and forth oscillation, the fact that you would be constantly accelerating and decelerating in order to switch directions would constantly be shifting the radius of the oscillating object in order to conserve the angular momentum.

Is this assumption correct? Is there a different formula/equation that is used to model such an occurance?

Edit: Or is the deal here that conservation of angular momentum doesn't apply in this instance because energy/torque must continually be added to the system in order to keep switching directions?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
To oscillate back and forth, you need some non-radial force, and angular momentum cannot be conserved (unless something else oscillates in the opposite way, but then you have different velocities for different parts of the setup).
 
mfb said:
To oscillate back and forth, you need some non-radial force, and angular momentum cannot be conserved (unless something else oscillates in the opposite way, but then you have different velocities for different parts of the setup).

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks mfb.
 
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