Angular velocity of a block of mass

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the angular velocity of a wheel attached to a falling block using energy conservation principles. The user initially sets up the conservation of energy equation but mistakenly includes potential energy as positive instead of negative. Another participant points out the omission of the wheel's radius in the final expression for angular velocity and corrects the signs in the energy equation. The correct relationship between linear and angular velocity is emphasized, highlighting the need to express angular velocity in terms of the radius. The conversation concludes with the user acknowledging the corrections and thanking the participant for their help.
WY
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Hey I was doing a question and I need someone to check if my method is ok - or stop me if I'm on completely the wrong track!

A block of mass m is attached (with a massless string) to a wheel. Consider the bicycle wheel is not turning initially. The block is allowed to fall a distance of h. Assume that the wheel has a moment of inertia I about its rotation axis.

Find the angular speed of the wheel after the block has fallen a distance of h in terms of m,g,h, r(of the wheel) and I

I took the relative zero as where the mass is starting from:
so the wheel has KE = 0 and the mass has KE=0 and PE=0

Then after it has fallen a height of h:
Wheel: KE = 1/2(I*omega^2)
Mass: KE = 1/2mv^2 and PE=mgh

so i came up with the conservation of energy equation to be:
0 = 1/2(I*omega^2) + 1/2mv^2 + mgh
the v the weight will be traveling at will be the same angular velocity the wheel is turning i substituted omega in for v
the I rearranged it so that omega was the subject and got:
omega = sqrt((-2mgh)/(Im))

is this rite? or ami completely wrong?? thanks in advance :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't see any radius r in your final answer. Did you express that:

\omega = \frac{v}{r} ?

Also:

0 = \frac{1}{2}I\omega ^2 + \frac{1}{2}mv^2 - mgh

So don't use (+) but (-) for mgh.
 
hahah right thanks for that!
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

Replies
67
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
852
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
335
Views
15K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K