Angular Momentum of a ball of clay

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a thin rod and a ball of clay, where the clay strikes the rod and causes it to rotate. The discussion centers around the concept of angular momentum and its application in this scenario, specifically regarding the moment of inertia and the angular velocity of the system after the collision.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the nature of angular momentum for the clay ball prior to contact with the rod, questioning how it can possess angular momentum despite moving horizontally. They discuss the relationship between linear velocity, radius vector, and angular velocity.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights into the nature of angular momentum in this context. There is a recognition of the complexities involved in understanding the system's behavior just before and after the collision, with some participants suggesting that the ball's linear motion contributes to its angular momentum relative to the pivot.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of distinguishing between different symbols for angular momentum and the implications of the rod's length in the calculations. There is an acknowledgment of the need for clarity in definitions and assumptions related to the problem setup.

NATURE.M
Messages
298
Reaction score
0
1. Homework Statement [/b]

Consider a thin rod of mass m_{r} and length L hanging from a pivot at its upper end. A ball of clay of mass m_{c} and of horizontal velocity v_{0} strikes the lower end of the rod at a right angle and sticks, causing the rod + ball to rotate. What is the angular velocity of the rod + ball immediately after the collision? (The moment of inertia of the rod about its CENTER OF MASS is ML^2/12. You can treat the clay ball as a particle).

The Attempt at a Solution



Now the solution handout indicates L_{i} = L_{f}, which I understand.
But then it indicates L_{i} = I_{c}ω_{c}^{2}, where I_{c} is the moment of inertia of the ball. Now I don't understand why the ball traveling horizontally has angular momentum, unless it represents the angular momentum of the system the instant the ball makes contact with the rod. Otherwise, the angular momentum of the system should be 0 initially. Any clarification is appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
it represents the angular momentum of the system the instant the ball makes contact with the rod
... there you go, you've answered your own question.

Notice, however, that the ball moving horizontally still has a radius vector to the pivot point. The radius vector has an angular velocity that changes with time. There must be a component of the linear velocity that is perpendicular to the radius vector. ergo: it is a rotating system wrt the pivot - it's just not a rigid rotating body, which is what you've been learning about.

The mass will also have a moment of inertia at all times, whether it is turning or not.
Moment of inertia is usually ##L=I\omega## though isn't it?
 
Simon Bridge said:
... there you go, you've answered your own question.

Notice, however, that the ball moving horizontally still has a radius vector to the pivot point. The radius vector has an angular velocity that changes with time. There must be a component of the linear velocity that is perpendicular to the radius vector. ergo: it is a rotating system wrt the pivot - it's just not a rigid rotating body, which is what you've been learning about.

The mass will also have a moment of inertia at all times, whether it is turning or not.
Moment of inertia is usually ##L=I\omega## though isn't it?

So then the ball has angular momentum relative to the pivot prior to actual contact? Is this because the ball has angular velocity prior to contact since ω=Rv , where v is the linear speed of the ball and r the distance from pivot, and as you said the ball always has moment of inertia (which makes sense)?
 
Well it can make sense to say so.. $$L=I\frac{d\theta}{dt}$$ and the object has a position in polar coordinates whatever the shape of it's trajectory. For a line, it only requires that the pivot/origin not be on the trajectory. Strictly you intuition is correct that you really need to have a central force for the angular momentum to be worth the effort. We may do something like this, for instance, if we are dealing with a large cloud of gas ... each particle having it's own linear velocity, but all gravitating towards each other - central force see? But each velocity is instantaneously linear.

Fortunately for you it does not matter because you only care about the angular momentum infinitesimally before the actual impact. It makes no difference if you imagine this is in the instant of time after the impact but before circular motion starts. In both imaginings, v is an instantaneous tangential velocity.

More general treatments are in the future for you.
But sometimes it is fun to get a glimpse of how big this can get.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Simon Bridge said:
Well it can make sense to say so.. $$L=I\frac{d\theta}{dt}$$ and the object has a position in polar coordinates whatever the shape of it's trajectory. For a line, it only requires that the pivot/origin not be on the trajectory. Strictly you intuition is correct that you really need to have a central force for the angular momentum to be worth the effort. We may do something like this, for instance, if we are dealing with a large cloud of gas ... each particle having it's own linear velocity, but all gravitating towards each other - central force see? But each velocity is instantaneously linear.

Fortunately for you it does not matter because you only care about the angular momentum infinitesimally before the actual impact. It makes no difference if you imagine this is in the instant of time after the impact but before circular motion starts. In both imaginings, v is an instantaneous tangential velocity.

More general treatments are in the future for you.
But sometimes it is fun to get a glimpse of how big this can get.

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.
 
Since the rod is given as length L, you want to use a different symbol for angular momentum.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
14K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
3K