Angular momentum of a rod about hinge

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of angular momentum for a uniform rod rotating about a hinge point located at L/3 from one end. Participants explore the applicability of various equations related to angular momentum and moment of inertia in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the equation L=I(cm)w and questions its applicability when the axis of rotation does not pass through the center of mass. They also explore the relationship between orbital and spin angular momentum.
  • Some participants clarify that the equation is general and can be applied in this scenario, regardless of translation, while others suggest deriving the relationship between orbital and spin angular momentum from fundamental definitions.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the concepts, with some providing clarifications and others expressing a willingness to derive results independently. There is a sense of progress as the original poster indicates they will revisit their understanding based on the feedback received.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing discussion about the assumptions related to the axis of rotation and the implications of translation versus pure rotation in the context of angular momentum calculations.

Krushnaraj Pandya
Gold Member
Messages
697
Reaction score
73

Homework Statement


A uniform rod (M, L) is rotated about a point L/3 from its left end. Angular momentum about O

Homework Equations


1) L=I(cm)w for purely rotating body
2) L(orbital)= M*v(cm)*perpendicular distance(r)
3) L(spin)= I*w

The Attempt at a Solution


I got the correct answer in two ways- in the first one I wrote L= I about O*w. But isn't equation 1 applicable only when axis of rotation passes through COM? or is it applicable here because the body is not translating and thus there are no non-inertial forces on any point?
In the second method I wrote L=L(orbital)+L(spin), L(orbital) is m*v(cm)*distance between O and COM while L(spin) has to be taken as I about com*w...Why is L(spin) taken about an axis through COM even though the body isn't even rotating about that point? please reveal my conceptual flaws
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
Krushnaraj Pandya said:
But isn't equation 1 applicable only when axis of rotation passes through COM?
Nope, equation 1 is general. If the body is purely rotating about the same point that the moment of inertia is taken about, then it will work.

Krushnaraj Pandya said:
or is it applicable here because the body is not translating and thus there are no non-inertial forces on any point?
Translation has nothing to do with forces if it’s uniform. Anyway no translation is involved in pure rotations, other than circular motions.

Krushnaraj Pandya said:
Why is L(spin) taken about an axis through COM even though the body isn't even rotating about that point?
You can derive the result “L = L_(orbit) + L_(spin)” from integrating (or summing for discrete distributions) the definition of the angular momentum L of a point particle.

It’s not fun to type latex on a phone, but maybe you can work it out yourself. Just consider the arbitrary position/velocity to be a composition of the CoM position/velocity plus the position/velocity in the CoM frame. Maybe I will type it up tomorrow if you still don’t know.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
Nathanael said:
Nope, equation 1 is general. If the body is purely rotating about the same point that the moment of inertia is taken about, then it will work.Translation has nothing to do with forces if it’s uniform. Anyway no translation is involved in pure rotations, other than circular motions.You can derive the result “L = L_(orbit) + L_(spin)” from integrating (or summing for discrete distributions) the definition of the angular momentum L of a point particle.

It’s not fun to type latex on a phone, but maybe you can work it out yourself. Just consider the arbitrary position/velocity to be a composition of the CoM position/velocity plus the position/velocity in the CoM frame. Maybe I will type it up tomorrow if you still don’t know.
I'll try to derive it myself...thanks. I'll take a look at things again and see if I have any more confusions and then let you know
 
Krushnaraj Pandya said:
I'll try to derive it myself...thanks. I'll take a look at things again and see if I have any more confusions and then let you know
seems like all my doubts are resolved...thank you very much!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
67
Views
4K
Replies
335
Views
17K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K