At what height does this plank leave the wall

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pushoam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Height Wall
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the physics of a plank leaving a wall at an angle, focusing on the calculations of torque and the motion of the center of mass. Participants debate the correctness of equations related to torque about the ground and center of mass, with particular emphasis on angular acceleration and normal forces. There is a consensus that the wall does not exert a normal force once the plank leaves it, and discussions highlight the importance of identifying the instantaneous center of rotation. Various methods for solving the problem, including conservation of energy and force balance, are explored, with some participants expressing interest in non-calculus approaches. The conversation emphasizes the complexity of analyzing the motion and forces involved as the plank detaches from the wall.
Pushoam
Messages
961
Reaction score
53

Homework Statement



upload_2017-8-16_19-30-14.png

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


upload_2017-8-16_19-32-49.png

When the plank leavs the wall at angle ##\theta ##,

Torque about ground ## \tau _g = mgl \cos \theta = \frac { m(2l)^2 \alpha }3##
Torque about COM ## \tau _c = Nl =\frac { m(2l)^2 \alpha } {12} ##
Acceleration of COM: a = ## [g^2 +( \frac N m )^2 - 2 g \frac N m \cos \theta]^{0.5} = \alpha l ##

Is this correct so far?
I think the last eqn. is wrong as further calculation gives ##\cos \theta =1##
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Is your free-body diagram complete?
 
robphy said:
Is your free-body diagram complete?
Yes, it is.
The wall could not exert any force as the plank leaves it.
So, there are only two forces acting on it which I have shown already.
 
What is ##\alpha## and where does it come from in the torque equation? There is also the motion of the center of mass to consider.
 
mfb said:
What is αα\alpha and where does it come from in the torque equation?
##\alpha ## is the standard symbol used for angular acceleration. It is in the torque equation.
mfb said:
There is also the motion of the center of mass to consider.
The last eqn in the OP is about the above.
 
Pushoam said:
##\alpha ## is the standard symbol used for angular acceleration.
I know, but it doesn't seem to make sense at this place because you do not have a pure rotation.
 
Pushoam said:

Homework Statement



View attachment 209084

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution


View attachment 209085
When the plank leaves the wall at angle ##\theta ##,

Torque about ground ## \tau _g = mgl \cos \theta = \frac { m(2l)^2 \alpha }3##
Torque about COM ## \tau _c = Nl =\frac { m(2l)^2 \alpha } {12} ##
Acceleration of COM: a = ## [g^2 +( \frac N m )^2 - 2 g \frac N m \cos \theta]^{0.5} = \alpha l ##

Is this correct so far?
I think the last eqn. is wrong as further calculation gives ##\cos \theta =1##
Normal force is perpendicular to the surface. You have the orientation of ##\ \vec N \ ## wrong in your FBD .

Does the wall (vertical) also provide a normal force?

There is more to the motion of the COM than simply giving its acceleration.
 
In terms of L and ##\theta##, what are the coordinates of the center of mass? In terms of these kinematic parameters, what are the velocity components of the center of mass? What are the acceleration components of the center of mass? What are the force balances in the vertical and horizontal directions?
 
  • #11
haruspex said:
Calculus is not needed.
Hummmm. Sound interesting.
 
  • #12
Chestermiller said:
Hummmm. Sound interesting.
You can obtain the velocity and angular velocity as functions of the initial and current angles just from conservation. It follows that it can be solved by considering the instantaneous circumstances at the current angle, since no further history can be relevant.
 
  • Like
Likes mfb and Chestermiller
  • #13
haruspex said:
You can obtain the velocity and angular velocity as functions of the initial and current angles just from conservation. It follows that it can be solved by considering the instantaneous circumstances at the current angle, since no further history can be relevant.
Yes. If you are willing to take one time derivative, you can get the needed info about angular acceleration from the energy equation. No need to set up torque or force equations (other than knowing that zero horizontal force implies zero horizontal acceleration of cm). I think we each have our own way that we like to solve this problem. :oldsmile:
 
  • Like
Likes ehild
  • #14
TSny said:
If you are willing to take one time derivative
Yes. Or to avoid calculus entirely, take moments about the instantaneous centre of rotation.
 
  • Like
Likes Nidum
  • #15
haruspex said:
Yes. Or to avoid calculus entirely, take moments about the instantaneous centre of rotation.
I'm intrigued by this. I was able to solve this problem using conservation of energy in conjunction with the force balance in the x direction, but had to use calculus to express the linear velocity- and acceleration components of the center of mass in terms of the angular velocity and angular acceleration. Please share how you were able to solve without using calculus.
 
  • #16
Chestermiller said:
I'm intrigued by this. I was able to solve this problem using conservation of energy in conjunction with the force balance in the x direction, but had to use calculus to express the linear velocity- and acceleration components of the center of mass in terms of the angular velocity and angular acceleration. Please share how you were able to solve without using calculus.
Did you identify the instantaneous centre of rotation?
 
  • #17
SammyS said:
Normal force is perpendicular to the surface. You have the orientation of ## \vec N##wrong in your FBD .
There are two surfaces and so there are two normal to the surfaces, 1) normal to the ground 2) normal to the plank?
Since you said that the one I took was wrong , I think ##\vec N ## will be normal to the ground. But, in general how to decide the correct normal?

SammyS said:
Does the wall (vertical) also provide a normal force?
No, it doesn't, as when the plank leaves the wall, it loses contact with the wall. So, at the moment of plank leaving the wall, I have to take the normal force exerted by the wall to be 0.

About other posts, I will reply after digesting them. Thanks for them.
 
  • #18
haruspex said:
Did you identify the instantaneous centre of rotation?
Is that the contact point on the horizontal surface?
 
  • #19
Chestermiller said:
Is that the contact point on the horizontal surface?
No.
At each instant, each point of the plank will be moving tangentially to the instantaneous rotation centre. So just take the normals to the contact points and see where they intersect.
 
  • Like
Likes mfb
  • #20
haruspex said:
No.
At each instant, each point of the plank will be moving tangentially to the instantaneous rotation centre. So just take the normals to the contact points and see where they intersect.
This is new to me. I'll have to think about it.
 
  • #21
haruspex said:
Yes. Or to avoid calculus entirely, take moments about the instantaneous centre of rotation.
By taking moments about the instantaneous center of rotation, do you mean setting up the equation ##\sum \tau_p = I_p \alpha##, where ##p## denotes the instantaneous center of rotation? This equation is not true in general, but it does happen to be true for this problem. Its validity here was not obvious to me until I justified it. Maybe I'm overlooking an easy way to see that it's true in this problem.
 
  • #22
mfb said:
but it doesn't seem to make sense at this place because you do not have a pure rotation.
Yes, but the motion could be divided into pure rotation and pure translation. So, I think a ≠ αl, but are other parts of the three eqns correct in OP?
 
  • #23
TSny said:
This equation is not true in general,
Actually, it is.
As I was taught at school, it is ok to use any fixed point in an inertial frame, the mass centre of the object, or the instantaneous centre of rotation of the object.
At the time, it bothered me that it was so special-case. Recently I investigated this and found that the set of points of the object which, taken as axis, happen to give the right answer form a circle passing through the mass centre and the instantaneous centre of rotation.
 
  • #24
I can see why ##\sum \tau_p = dL_p/dt## is valid. It's the equating of ##dL_p/dt## with ##I_p \alpha## that I don't think is always valid.

For example, suppose at some instant of time a rod is instantaneously rotating about one end, p, with angular speed ##\omega##. Also, at this instant there is a single force F applied to the rod at p, as shown. Then ##\sum \tau_p = dL_p/dt## is valid since you can show that both sides are zero. But ##\alpha \neq 0##. So, ##\sum \tau_p \neq I_p \alpha##.
upload_2017-8-16_23-19-37.png
 
  • #25
haruspex said:
In that model, the linear acceleration of the mass centre has moment about the chosen axis. That is all part of the rate of change of angular momentum.
Yes. I think maybe I've misinterpreted what you were originally saying when you said "take moments about the instantaneous center of rotation". If you meant set up ##\sum \tau_p = dL_p/dt## and then show that ##dL_p/dt = I_p \alpha##, then I'm with you. But if a student were to start with ##\sum \tau_p = I_p \alpha##, I would ask for justification since I don't think this equation is generally valid.
 
  • #26
TSny said:
. If you meant set up ##\sum \tau_p = dL_p/dt ##and then show that##dL_p/dt = I_p \alpha##, then I'm with you. But if a student were to start with ##\sum \tau_p = I_p \alpha##, I would ask for justification since I don't think this equation is generally valid.
You are asking for justification because ## \vec L_p = I_p \omega ## is valid only for fixed-axis rotation. Right?
 
  • #27
TSny said:
But α≠0. So, ##\sum \tau_p \neq I_p \alpha##.
Because, of the applied force at p, the direction of axis of rotation does not change. Right? If so, then the axis of rotation remains fixed in direction.
Hence, ##\sum \tau_p = I_p \alpha##.
How do you know that α≠0? Because if it is so, then ## \omega ## is changing and so the angular momentum.
 
  • #28
Another attempt :
upload_2017-8-17_13-6-47.png

Center ūf mass motion gives,
##
mg(-\hat y ) + N \hat y = m\ddot y \hat y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ddot y <0. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(1)##

## y = l \sin \theta
\\ \ddot y = l\{\ddot \theta \cos \theta - \sin \theta {\dot \theta }^2\}
##
I can't decide here whether ## \ddot \theta ## is positive or negative.
Since the torque about both center of mass C and pivot P is anti - clockwise,
considering ## \vec \tau = I \vec \alpha : \vec \alpha = \ddot \theta \hat z, ## I decide ##\ddot >0. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(2)##
But this method is valid only if ## \vec \tau = I \vec \alpha## is valid only for fixed axis rotation.
Using (1) and (2) ,
##N- mg = ml[ \cos \theta ~\ddot \theta - \sin \theta ~ {\dot \theta }^2 ] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(1.1)##

Similarly,
## \ddot x =0 ~ and~ x = l \cos \theta ## gives,

##\ddot \theta = \cot \theta {\dot \theta}^2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(3)##

(1.1) and (3) gives,
##N - mg = \frac {ml {\dot \theta }^2 \cos {2 \theta} } {\sin \theta } ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(4)##

Now, considering rotational motion about center of mass,
Torque about center of mass,
##Nl\cos \theta = I_{cen} \alpha ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(5)##
Now, can I take ## \ddot \theta = \alpha##?

Is this correct so far?
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-8-17_12-56-53.png
    upload_2017-8-17_12-56-53.png
    3 KB · Views: 465
  • upload_2017-8-17_13-5-48.png
    upload_2017-8-17_13-5-48.png
    3.2 KB · Views: 469
  • #29
TSny said:
Yes. If you are willing to take one time derivative, you can get the needed info about angular acceleration from the energy equation.
How to derive the energy eqn. as normal forces by wall and ground are not known?
Should I take them constant ?
 
  • #30
Why do we take Normal force perpendicular to the ground instead of that to the plank?
 
  • #32
Pushoam said:
How to derive the energy eqn. as normal forces by wall and ground are not known?
Should I take them constant ?
Why do you need the forces for the energy equation? There is no friction.
 
  • #33
Pushoam said:
and ##x = l \cos \theta## gives,
That is only transiently true. It is not valid to differentiate that to obtain equations relating the derivatives of x and theta.
 
  • #34
haruspex said:
No.
At each instant, each point of the plank will be moving tangentially to the instantaneous rotation centre. So just take the normals to the contact points and see where they intersect.
I have taken my kinematic equations for the acceleration of the center of mass in cartesian coordinates and used them to back out the location of the instantaneous center of rotation. Sure enough, it turned out to be exactly where you said it would be (at the instantaneous intersections of the normals). I now see what you mean about resolving the acceleration into a tangential and radial component to the trajectory of the center of mass, and obtaining the tangential and centripetal accelerations along a radial line through the center of rotation. Very cute. But now I have no idea how to generalize this. And also, from scratch, how does one deduce the location of the center of rotation? This is all very interesting.
 
  • #35
haruspex said:
Why do you need the forces for the energy equation? There is no friction.
I have to calculate work done by normal forces in order to apply work kinetic energy theorem.
haruspex said:
That is only transiently true. It is not valid to differentiate that to obtain equations relating the derivatives of x and theta.
At time t,
## x(t) = l \cos \theta(t)
\\ x(t +Δt) = l \cos \theta ( t +Δt) = l\cos{( \theta +Δ\theta)} = l \cos \theta - l \sin \theta ~Δ\theta
\\ \text {by definition, } \dot x = -l \sin \theta ~\dot \theta##
Now, how to get to your statement mathematically?
 
  • #36
Pushoam said:
You are asking for justification because ## \vec L_p = I_p \omega ## is valid only for fixed-axis rotation. Right?
It is also valid in certain other cases. It is valid if point ##p## is the instantaneous center of rotation. But it is not generally true that ##d L_p/dt = I_p \alpha## when ##p## is the instantaneous center of rotation. So, for the plank problem, I believe that ##d L_p/dt = I_p \alpha## needs to be justified. (I think it can be justified.)
 
  • #37
@haruspex I did an analysis to see if I could derive a general relationship for quantifying the location of the instantaneous center of rotation, given the velocity of the center of mass and the rate of rotation of the object. I probably "reinvented the wheel," but the results I obtained were as follows: If ##v_x## and ##v_y## are the cartesian components of the velocity of the center of mass, and ##\omega## is the counter-clockwise rate of rotation of the object, the coordinates of the center of rotation are given by the simple equations:$$x-x_c=-\frac{v_y}{\omega}$$ $$y-y_c=\frac{v_x}{\omega}$$. Is this consistent with your experience?

Chet
 
  • #38
Pushoam said:
Another attempt :
View attachment 209130
Center ūf mass motion gives,
##
mg(-\hat y ) + N \hat y = m\ddot y \hat y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ddot y <0. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(1)##

## y = l \sin \theta
\\ \ddot y = l\{\ddot \theta \cos \theta - \sin \theta {\dot \theta }^2\}
##
I can't decide here whether ## \ddot \theta ## is positive or negative.
Since the torque about both center of mass C and pivot P is anti - clockwise,
considering ## \vec \tau = I \vec \alpha : \vec \alpha = \ddot \theta \hat z, ## I decide ##\ddot >0. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(2)##
But this method is valid only if ## \vec \tau = I \vec \alpha## is valid only for fixed axis rotation.
Using (1) and (2) ,
##N- mg = ml[ \cos \theta ~\ddot \theta - \sin \theta ~ {\dot \theta }^2 ] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(1.1)##

Similarly,
## \ddot x =0 ~ and~ x = l \cos \theta ## gives,

##\ddot \theta = \cot \theta {\dot \theta}^2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(3)##

(1.1) and (3) gives,
##N - mg = \frac {ml {\dot \theta }^2 \cos {2 \theta} } {\sin \theta } ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(4)##

Now, considering rotational motion about center of mass,
Torque about center of mass,
##Nl\cos \theta = I_{cen} \alpha ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(5)##
Now, can I take ## \ddot \theta = \alpha##?

Is this correct so far?
Your vertical force balance is correct. You also need to write the equation for the horizontal force balance, including the horizontal normal force. Your moment balance omits the contribution of the horizontal normal force, and it must be included. You are going to need to combine these three equations in order to solve for the angular acceleration in terms of the angle ##\theta##. You can then integrate that equation to get the angular velocity as a function of the initial angle and the current angle.

More precisely, what you can do is solve the horizontal and vertical force balance equations for the two normal forces, and then substitute these into the moment balance equation. This will give you a relationship for the angular acceleration.
 
  • #39
Pushoam said:
Now, how to get to your statement mathematically?
My difficulty is that we are dealing with the instant that contact is lost. Deriving to get the velocity and acceleration up until that instant is fine, and of course the velocity obtained will also be correct at that instant, but can we be sure the acceleration obtained is correct? Maybe it is, and I'm being overcautious.
 
  • #40
Chestermiller said:
@haruspex I did an analysis to see if I could derive a general relationship for quantifying the location of the instantaneous center of rotation, given the velocity of the center of mass and the rate of rotation of the object. I probably "reinvented the wheel," but the results I obtained were as follows: If ##v_x## and ##v_y## are the cartesian components of the velocity of the center of mass, and ##\omega## is the counter-clockwise rate of rotation of the object, the coordinates of the center of rotation are given by the simple equations:$$x-x_c=-\frac{v_y}{\omega}$$ $$y-y_c=\frac{v_x}{\omega}$$. Is this consistent with your experience?

Chet
Yes, that looks right. It just says ##\vec v=\vec x\times\vec\omega##.
But in this case the easiest way to find it is by taking the normals to the known velocity vectors.
 
  • #41
haruspex said:
My difficulty is that we are dealing with the instant that contact is lost. Deriving to get the velocity and acceleration up until that instant is fine, and of course the velocity obtained will also be correct at that instant, but can we be sure the acceleration obtained is correct? Maybe it is, and I'm being overcautious.
I don't think you are being overcautious. He can't just set the horizontal acceleration to zero, because the horizontal force history prior to loss of contact is important in determining what is happening at the time of contact. It is necessary to characterize the entire time interval between the initial state and the time that contact is lost (or to apply the energy balance at least at the two end points).
 
  • #42
haruspex said:
Yes, that looks right. It just says ##\vec v=\vec x\times\vec\omega##.
But in this case the easiest way to find it is by taking the normals to the known velocity vectors.
Yes. That's exactly what I did.

Thanks. Now, I'd like to learn more as to how this factors into the balance of moments.
 
  • #43
An interesting discussion.
I arrived at a solution using minimal calculus and basic physics and wanted to check my result.
I found a solution using Lagrangian mechanics at the following web page:

http://physics.columbia.edu/files/physics/content/Quals2010Sec1.pdf

and my result agreed with the one found there.
 
  • #44
J Hann said:
An interesting discussion.
I arrived at a solution using minimal calculus and basic physics and wanted to check my result.
I found a solution using Lagrangian mechanics at the following web page:

http://physics.columbia.edu/files/physics/content/Quals2010Sec1.pdf

and my result agreed with the one found there.
In my judgment, there was quite a bit of calculus in there.
 
  • #45
Chestermiller said:
In my judgment, there was quite a bit of calculus in there.
I didn't use advanced mechanics.
I only used introductory Physics and a smattering of rudimentary calculus.
 
Back
Top