Around which points to make T=I(alpha)

  • Thread starter Karol
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Points
In summary, the conversation discusses the use of the rigid body angular momentum formula T=I\alpha and the points at which it can be calculated, including a fixed point, the center of mass, and a point moving parallel to the center of mass. The formula L=I\omega is also derived and it is explained that in order to get the correct velocity of a particle, the calculation must be done only around the stationary point of rotation. The parallel axis theorem is also mentioned as a useful tool for calculating angular momentum. The conversation ends with a discussion about the derivation of the equation LP = ICω + m PC x vc.o.m. and its connection to the parallel
  • #1
Karol
1,380
22

Homework Statement


I was told that I can use the rigid body angular momentum formula T=I[itex]\alpha[/itex]
Aroud 3 points: a fixed one (I assume the temporary center of rotation), or the center of mass or a point moving parallel to the c.m.
I have tested it with the case shown in the picture: a cylinder rotating on a rough surface, a steady force acting on it's center.
When calculating the angular acceleration [itex]\alpha[/itex] round the points A and C I get the same result, but when calculating around B-a different one, meaning the above is correct.
Why is that? the formula L=I[itex]\omega[/itex] is derived this way:
[tex]L=\sum_{n=1}^N L_n=\sum_{n=1}^N m_nv_n\cdot r_n=\sum_{n=1}^N m_nr^2_n \omega=I\omega[/tex]
So, I understand, in order to get the velocity of the particle correct, I have to calculate only round the stationary point of rotation. The formula T=I[itex]\alpha[/itex] is only the derivative of the former.
Can anyone explain a bit, and give a name of a book that explains this in detail, since some ordinary books talk only in general about this.
 

Attachments

  • Snap1.jpg
    Snap1.jpg
    6.3 KB · Views: 358
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi Karol! :smile:
Karol said:
When calculating the angular acceleration [itex]\alpha[/itex] round the points A and C I get the same result, but when calculating around B-a different one, meaning the above is correct.

No, the velocity of B is parallel to that of the centre of mass (C), so the result should be the same.

Have you included the friction force at A (not in the diagram) … if there's no friction, then why would the angular speed change? :wink:

(and sorry, I don't know any book that goes into this :redface:)
 
  • #3
There's friction and I included it in my calculation for point B. Around point A:

[tex]T_A=I_A\alpha[/itex]
[tex]FR=(kmR^2+mR^2)\alpha\Rightarrow\alpha=\frac{F}{mR(k+1)}[/itex]

I get the same [itex]\alpha[/itex] when I calculate round point C.
What is the friction force f ?
[tex]\sum F=ma\Rightarrow F-f=ma=mR\alpha=mR\frac{F}{mR(k+1)}[/tex]
[tex]\Rightarrow f=F\frac{k}{k+1}[/tex]

Around point B:

[tex]T_B=I_B\alpha[/itex]

[tex]F\frac{R}{2}+f\frac{R}{2}=(kmR^2+m\frac{R^2}{4})\alpha[/tex]
[tex]\Rightarrow \alpha=\frac{2F(2k+1)}{mR(k+1)(4k+1)}[/tex]

And it's not the same as the first.
How do you, Tiny-Tim, know this subject with no book to offer?
 

Attachments

  • Snap1.jpg
    Snap1.jpg
    4.5 KB · Views: 390
  • #4
Hi Karol! :smile:

Your formula τB = IBα is wrong :redface:

The angular momentum about any point P is Iω about the centre of mass (C) plus the (ordinary) moment about B of the total momentum (mvc.o.m.) as if it were at C.

ie LP = ICω + m PC x vc.o.m.

If P is on the axis of rotation, then vc.o.m. = PC x ω, and so LP = (IC + md2)ω = IPω.

In any other case, LP is not IPω

(and τP is not IPα) :wink:

In other words:

The parallel axis theorem (IP = IC + md2) is only useful at the centre of rotation* (or, if you have a body made up of parts, you can apply it at the centre of mass of the whole body for each part for which you know the moment of inertia )

* to be precise: on the axis of rotation
 
  • #5
I assume LP = ICω + m PC x vc.o.m. comes from the transformation of vectors between moving coordinate systems:
[itex]\Vec{A_2}[/itex] is vector A2 relative to the ground
[itex]\Vec{A_1}[/itex] is vector A1 relative to the ground
[itex]\Vec{A_{21}}[/itex] is vector A2 relative to vector A1
[tex]\Vec{A_2}=\Vec{A_1}+\Vec{A_{21}}[/tex]
But I think you switched the places of the vectors in:
vc.o.m. = PC x ω
It should be:
vc.o.m. = ω x PC
Since then the direction of vc.o.m. comes out correct.
 
  • #6
Yeah, I can never remember which way round that is ! :biggrin:
 
  • #7
How is this equation derived?
LP = ICω + m PC x vc.o.m.
 
  • #8
Karol said:
How is this equation derived?
LP = ICω + m PC x vc.o.m.

LP = ∫∫∫ (r - rP) x ρ v dxdydz

= ∫∫∫ (r - rP) x ρ (ω x (r - rc.o.m.) + vc.o.m.) dxdydz

= ∫∫∫ (r - rP) x ρ (ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz + (∫∫∫ ρ (r - rP) dxdydz) x vc.o.m.

= ∫∫∫ (r - rc.o.m.) x ρ (ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz + (mvc.o.m. - mrP) x vc.o.m.

(because ∫∫∫ ρ (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz = 0)

= Ic.o.m.ω + m PC x vc.o.m. :smile:

More indirectly, but shorter (with vP being the velocity of the part of the body at position P) …

LP = ∫∫∫ (r - rP) x ρ v dxdydz

= ∫∫∫ (r - rP) x ρ (ω x (r - rP) + vP) dxdydz

= ∫∫∫ (r - rP) x ρ (ω x (r - rP)) dxdydz + (∫∫∫ ρ (r - rP) dxdydz) x vP

= IPω + m PC x vP

and then applying the parallel axis theorem …

= Ic.o.m.ω + m PC x vc.o.m. :wink:

(and if P is the centre of rotation, so that vP = vc.o.r. = 0, then:

= Ic.o.r.ω)​
 
Last edited:
  • #9
First, Tiny-Tim, I thank you very much. You feed my curiosity...

But I don't understand the transition between:
∫∫∫ (r - rP) x ρ (ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz + (∫∫∫ ρ (r - rP) dxdydz) x vc.o.m.
And:
∫∫∫ (r - rc.o.m.) x ρ (ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz + (mvc.o.m. - mrP) x vc.o.m.

In the first integral, I guess you did:
r - rP=(rc.o.m.-rP)+(r - rc.o.m.)=PC+(r - rc.o.m.)

Taking PC and returning to the integral:

∫∫∫PC x ρ (ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz=
∫∫∫PC x ρ (ω x r - ω x rc.o.m.) dxdydz=
∫∫∫ρ PC x (ω x r) - PC x (ω x rc.o.m.) dxdydz

None of these yields ∫∫∫ ρ (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz.

In the second integral:

∫∫∫ρrPdxdydz=mrP

But:

∫∫∫ρrdxdydz Is not equal to mvc.o.m.
 
  • #10
Hi Karol! :smile:

In the second integral, you're right … I mistyped mvc.o.m. instead of mrc.o.m.

the next line is correct, though, since (mrc.o.m. - mrP) x vc.o.m. = m PC x vc.o.m. :wink:

In the first integral, rc.o.m. rP and ω are all independent of x y and z, so they come outside the ∫∫∫, leaving only ∫∫∫ (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydx = 0 :smile:
 
  • #11
∫∫∫ (r - rP) x ρ (ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz=
ρ ω x ∫∫∫ (r - rP) x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz=
ρ ω x ∫∫∫ r x (r - rc.o.m.)dxdydz - ∫∫∫rP x (r - rc.o.m.)dxdydz=
ρ ω x ∫∫∫ r x (r - rc.o.m.)dxdydz+0=
ρ ω x (∫∫∫ r x r - ∫∫∫ r x rc.o.m.)=
ω x ∫∫∫ ρ r x rc.o.m.

But this does not give ωIc.o.m., or does it?
 
  • #12
Karol said:
∫∫∫ (r - rP) x ρ (ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz=
ρ ω x ∫∫∫ (r - rP) x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz=

You can't do that! :redface:

A x (B x C) is nothing like B x (A x C) :frown:
 
  • #13
∫∫∫ (r - rP) x ρ ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz=
∫∫∫ r x ρ ω x (r - rc.o.m.) - ∫∫∫ rP x ρ ω x (r - rc.o.m.)=
∫∫∫ r x ρ ω x (r - rc.o.m.) - 0=
∫∫∫ r x ρ ω x r - ∫∫∫ r x ρ ω x rc.o.m.=
∫∫∫ r x ρ ω x r - (∫∫∫ r x ρ ω) x rc.o.m.
 
  • #14
Please, Tiny-Tim, complete the explanation.
In my previous post I wrote the equations, but didn't get the required result: Ic[itex]\omega[/itex]
 
  • #15
It's at the start of my post #8 …

you need to have an (r - rc.o.m.) on the extreme left for it to work (to get Ic.o.m.):wink:

for some reason you decided not to do so! :confused:
 
  • #16
But that's exactly my question!
At the extreme left on the first formula:
∫∫∫ (r - rP) x ρ ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz + ...
There is: (r - rP)
But then the extreme left member changes to: (r - rc.o.m.) in the next equation:
∫∫∫ (r - rc.o.m.) x ρ ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz + ...
And the rest of these two formulas is the same. how to make the transition of (r - rP) to (r - rc.o.m.)?
 
  • #17
Karol said:
how to make the transition of (r - rP) to (r - rc.o.m.)?

Because …
tiny-tim said:
(because ∫∫∫ ρ (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz = 0)
… (and rP is constant).
 
  • #18
I now understand I shouldn't open the parentheses. I understand that From your second example with vP.
But in your first analysis I don't understand how you got the same member twice, as needed and as described in your second example.
That is, from:
∫∫∫ (r - rP) x ρ ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz + ...
There is: (r - rP)
But then the extreme left member changes to: (r - rc.o.m.) in:
∫∫∫ (r - rc.o.m.) x ρ ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz + ...
how to make the transition of (r - rP) to (r - rc.o.m.)?
And you write that
tiny-tim said:
(because ∫∫∫ ρ (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz = 0)
Where do you get this without opening parentheses?
 
  • #19
it's the definition of the centre of mass
 
  • #20
I know the definition of C.M.. I ask how, in what way, you arrived to the partial expression:
∫∫∫ ρ (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz
From the formula:
∫∫∫ (r - rP) x ρ ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz

But my main question is this:
You have changed the first member, (r - rP), in the formula:
∫∫∫ (r - rP) x ρ ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz
To (r - rc.o.m.) In the formula:
∫∫∫ (r - rc.o.m.) x ρ ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz
By what right? what's the process you have made for that.
From there, I guess, I'll go on my own.
Thanks.
 
  • #21
Karol said:
You have changed the first member, (r - rP), in the formula:
∫∫∫ (r - rP) x ρ ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz
To (r - rc.o.m.) In the formula:
∫∫∫ (r - rc.o.m.) x ρ ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz

Because I subtracted ∫∫∫ (rP - rc.o.m.) x ρ ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz,

which is a constant "times" ∫∫∫ ρ (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz, which = 0.
 
  • #22
Thank you very much, Tiny-Tim. It's a relief.

I think you should add ∫∫∫ (rP - rc.o.m.) x ρ ω x (r - rc.o.m.) dxdydz, instead of subtracting, since then you get ∫∫∫ (r - rc.o.m.) x ρ ω x (r + rc.o.m.) dxdydz.
 
  • #23
I try to calculate [itex]\alpha[/itex] around point P, as drawn.
I don't get the right answer, since I get a different [itex]\alpha[/itex] at points O and C, which is (round point O):
[tex]M_O=I_O\alpha\Rightarrow FR=(KmR^2+mR^2)\alpha
\Rightarrow \alpha=\frac{F}{mR(K+1)}[/tex]

I take the derivative of LP = ICω + m PC x vc.o.m. and get MP = ICα + m PC x ac.o.m..

I find the friction force, with the help of [itex]\alpha[/itex]:
[tex]\Sigma F=ma \Rightarrow f=F\frac{K}{K+1}[/tex]

MP = ICα + m PC x ac.o.m.

[tex]\Rightarrow\left(F\frac{R}{2}\cdot f \frac{R}{2}\right)\hat{z}=mR^2\left(K+\frac{1}{4}\right)\vec{\alpha}+\left(m\frac{R}{2}\cdot\frac{F}{m(K+1)}\right)\hat{z}[/tex]
[tex]\alpha=\frac{4FK}{mR(K+1)(4K+1)}[/tex]

Which is not the same as the previous I found.
 

Attachments

  • Snap1.jpg
    Snap1.jpg
    10.3 KB · Views: 365
  • #24
Hi Karol! :smile:

The dot should be a +, and the "+ 1/4" shouldn't be there.

Then your equation becomes

(2K+1)R/2(K+1) = (Rα/a)2KR/2(K+1) + R/2(K+1) :smile:
 
  • #25
The "+ 1/4" should be there since point P is on the half of the radius.
And there is no F in your equation.
 
  • #26
The (K + 1/4) is supposed to be part of IC not IP, so the "+ 1/4" shouldn't be there

(I canceled the Fs … ok?)
 
  • #27
You cannot cancel the Fs, it doesn't appear in the α member:
[tex]\left(F\frac{R}{2}+f \frac{R}{2}\right)\hat{z}=KmR^2\vec{\alpha}+\left(\frac{R}{2}\cdot\frac{RF}{m(K+1)}\right)\hat{z}[/tex]
 
  • #28
oh, that (Rα/a) shouldn't be there …
(2K+1)R/2(K+1) = (Rα/a)2KR/2(K+1) + R/2(K+1)

that should have been …
(2K+1)R/2(K+1) = 2KR/2(K+1) + R/2(K+1)

(using α = F/MR(K+1))
 
  • #29
tiny-tim said:
that should have been …
(2K+1)R/2(K+1) = 2KR/2(K+1) + R/2(K+1)
(using α = F/MR(K+1))
First, you can't use α = F/MR(K+1) since I have to find α.
Second, your last m PC x ac.o.m. member, R/2(K+1), is not correct.
It should be:
[tex]\left( \frac{R}{2}\cdot\frac{RF}{m(K+1)}\right)[/tex]
Which gives FR2/2M(K+1)
 
  • #30
Karol said:
First, you can't use α = F/MR(K+1) since I have to find α.

Yes, I can … you found α from calculations based on the centre of mass.

All I had to do was show that that was consistent.
Second, your last m PC x ac.o.m. member, R/2(K+1), is not correct.

Yes it is, it's exactly the same as yours, except for a factor of RF/M which I took out from the whole equation.
 
  • #31
I want to find (alpha), but I don't succeed:

[tex]\left(F\frac{R}{2}+f \frac{R}{2}\right)\hat{z}=KmR^2\vec{\alpha}+\left(\frac{R}{2}\cdot\frac{RF}{m(K+1)}\right)\hat{z}[/tex]

[tex]\frac{FR(2K+1)}{2(K+1)}=KmR^2\cdot \alpha+\frac{FR^2}{2m(K+1)}[/tex]

Which doesn't give the previous (alpha).
 

1. What is the significance of T=I(alpha) in scientific research?

The equation T=I(alpha) represents the relationship between torque (T) and moment of inertia (I) in a rotating system, where alpha is the angular acceleration. It is a fundamental concept in physics and is often used in the study of rotational motion and dynamics.

2. How is T=I(alpha) derived?

T=I(alpha) is derived from Newton's second law of motion, which states that the net torque acting on an object is equal to the product of its moment of inertia and angular acceleration. By rearranging this equation, we get T=I(alpha).

3. What are the units of T and I in T=I(alpha)?

The units of torque (T) are Newton-meters (N*m), while the units of moment of inertia (I) are kilogram-meters squared (kg*m^2). Therefore, the units of T=I(alpha) are N*m^2.

4. How is T=I(alpha) applied in real-world scenarios?

T=I(alpha) is commonly used in engineering and physics to analyze the motion of rotating objects, such as wheels, gears, and motors. It can also be applied in sports science to understand the movements of athletes and in astronomy to study the rotation of celestial bodies.

5. Are there any limitations to the use of T=I(alpha) in scientific research?

While T=I(alpha) is a useful equation, it assumes that the object is a rigid body and that the torque and moment of inertia remain constant. In reality, these assumptions may not always hold true, and therefore, the equation may not accurately describe the motion of a system. Additionally, T=I(alpha) does not take into account external forces or friction, which can also affect the rotational motion of an object.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
3
Replies
97
Views
3K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
310
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
106
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
845
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
797
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
19
Views
801
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
705
Back
Top