negation
- 817
- 0
vela said:Velocity is a vector; ##\omega r## isn't.
I can see why ωr is a scalar quantity. But don't most book go by the definition rω = linear velocity?
vela said:Velocity is a vector; ##\omega r## isn't.
That's not the error in those calculations.negation said:I can see why. I misread wrongly and used 2pi = 60 mins instead of 2pi = 30 mins. I should have used the latter and worked on that information instead.
No, I already told you you made other mistakes.My frustration is, aside from this minor effort, is the mathematical reasoning correct then?
No. ##\omega r## is the speed or, equivalently, the magnitude of the instantaneous velocity, but it's not the velocity ##\vec{v}##, which is a vector. You will never see a book write ##\vec{v} = \omega r##. You will, however, see ##v = \omega r##. ##v## and ##\vec{v}## aren't the same thing. It's possible that a book may sloppily use the word velocity to mean speed, but careful authors won't do that to avoid misconceptions.negation said:I can see why ωr is a scalar quantity. But don't most book go by the definition rω = linear velocity?
vela said:That's not the error in those calculations.
No, I already told you you made other mistakes.
No. ##\omega r## is the speed or, equivalently, the magnitude of the instantaneous velocity, but it's not the velocity ##\vec{v}##, which is a vector. You will never see a book write ##\vec{v} = \omega r##. You will, however, see ##v = \omega r##. ##v## and ##\vec{v}## aren't the same thing. It's possible that a book may sloppily use the word velocity to mean speed, but careful authors won't do that to avoid misconceptions.
No, you don't.negation said:so we know delta Θ = 0.523 radian
That's the tangential speed. (It's not a velocity since you're not quoting the direction, and anyway that changes. What's constant is the speed.)negation said:a = v^2 / r = s/t = r . theta / t
delta theta = 1.05 rad
tangential velocity v = 1.05 rad x 75m / 300s = 0.263ms^-1
What's your reasoning for that equation? You've divided the speed (constant) by the radius. That would give the angular speed, right?a = 0.263ms^-1 ^2 /75m = 9.138e-4ms^-2
At the risk of confusing negation further, let me put that differently.vela said:Velocity is a vector; ωr isn't.
haruspex said:That's the tangential speed. (It's not a velocity since you're not quoting the direction, and anyway that changes. What's constant is the speed.)
You could have got this more easily: it travels πd = π150m in 30 minutes, so the speed is π*150/(30*60) m/s.
haruspex said:What's your reasoning for that equation? You've divided the speed (constant) by the radius. That would give the angular speed, right?
You want the average acceleration, acceleration being a vector. For that, you need the change in velocity, also a vector. The speed is constant, v say, but the direction changes. At the bottom, the velocity is v horizontal. After 5 minutes, it's v in a different direction. What direction? What is the difference of the two velocities?
In effect, ω→ is the angular velocity and ω is the angular speed, am I right?haruspex said:At the risk of confusing negation further, let me put that differently.
If ω is angular speed and r is the magnitude of the radius then these are scalars and ωr gives the tangential speed, another scalar.
But angular velocity, ##\vec\omega## is a vector, and a specific radius can be a vector (from the axis to a given point on the rim) ##\vec r##. Then the tangential velocity is the cross product ##\vec \omega \times \vec r##, with the appropriate sign convention.
haruspex said:Back on part (a), I'm not sure I understand the question. Is it supposed to be the average angular velocity? The average velocity at the perimeter? The average velocity over the entire disc? If either of the last two, the answer would be zero, surely. But perhaps the "over a 5 minute interval" rider was supposed to apply to part (a) also?
That's the magnitude of the acceleration, yes. Technically, acceleration is a vector. The vector equation is ##\vec a = \vec \omega \times (\vec r \times \vec \omega)##.negation said:The question asked for average acceleration. a→ = v^2→/r is the instantaneous acceleration at anyone point of the rim.
Not sure what you meant there. An acceleration is not a velocity, so it is not an average velocity either.In uniform circular motion, the centripetal acceleration is the instantaneous acceleration is the average velocity
If the time period is fixed, yes. Over half a cycle, the change in velocity is from ωr in one direction to ωr in the opposite direction, a change of 2ωr in time 2π/ω, yielding an average acceleration of magnitude ω2r/π. Over a complete cycle the average acceleration is zero.since the change in velocity over any given time on the rim is the same.
My mistake - I missed the ^2.a→ = v^2/r is the centripetal acceleration isn't it? Why is it angular speed?
Just picking an arbitrary point in the revolution for the start of the 5 minute interval. The point you pick won't matter because the question asks for the magnitude of the acceleration.What is this emphasis about "bottom"?
Fine.At t=0, isn't the position at (0,0)? and at t(5) the wheel is displaced at an angle theta equivalent to 2pi/30 x 5mins? -this is the interpretation I have been working on.
Better to keep it in terms of rational multiples of pi. π/3 in this case.In 30mins, the change in theta is 2pi so in 5 mins the change in theta is 1.05 radians
That's the sort of approach you need for part (a) if that question is also supposed to be only over a 5 minute interval. But I believe we're dealing with part (b) here.p(2) = (75sin 1.05, 75cos 1.05) = (65, 37)
p(1) = (75sin 0, 75 cos0) = (0,75)
therefore, [p(2)-p(1)]/1800s = (65,-38)/1800s = (0.036, -0.02)
average velocity is therefore (0.036, -0.02)
haruspex said:That's the sort of approach you need for part (a) if that question is also supposed to be only over a 5 minute interval. But I believe we're dealing with part (b) here.
The average velocity is of no interest in part (b). You want the actual velocity (as vectors) at two instants 5 minutes apart. You then take the difference of these as vectors (giving the change in velocity) divide by 5 minutes to get the acceleration (a vector), then take its magnitude.
Quite so. The question as posted only asks for the magnitude, so the two answers are the same.negation said:What the answer gave for part (a) was (0.22i + 0.13j)ms^-1
What I got was 0.22i - 0.13j
the question asked for magnitude so I'm not sure why is it giving the answer in unit vector.
I've already told you exactly what to do here.The answer to part(b) as given by the sheet is (-4.4i +7.6j)ms^-2 which I have no clue as to how should I arrive.
It was not specified as to whether the direction of rotation is CCW or CW. My answer to part (a) was based on the assumption the entity rotates CW.haruspex said:Quite so. The question as posted only asks for the magnitude, so the two answers are the same.
If you want to compute the vector then you need more information. E.g. which way is it rotating?
haruspex said:I've already told you exactly what to do here.
You want the actual velocity (as vectors) at two instants 5 minutes apart.
Pick some arbitrary position, the bottom of the wheel, say. What is the tangential velocity of that point (a vector)?
5 minutes later, the wheel has rotated π/3. That point will have the same tangential speed but in a different direction. What is the new velocity vector? What is the difference of the two vectors?
No, I meant velocity, but you can get there by calculating the speed since the direction will be easy to determine.negation said:I assume you meant tangential speed since r.ω are both scalar.
It is not getting faster. The wheel is turning at a constant rate. You already worked out what that rate is (ω) and the tangential speed (0.262ms^-1). Next, you need to find what direction a point on the periphery is moving at two points in time 5 minutes apart. That will give you two velocity vectors each of magnitude 0.262ms^-1 but in different directions. You want their vector difference.at time t = 0; r = 75m, ω = (0pi / 300s) = 0 \ni v=r.ω = 0ms^-1
haruspex said:No, I meant velocity, but you can get there by calculating the speed since the direction will be easy to determine.
It is not getting faster. The wheel is turning at a constant rate. You already worked out what that rate is (ω) and the tangential speed (0.262ms^-1). Next, you need to find what direction a point on the periphery is moving at two points in time 5 minutes apart. That will give you two velocity vectors each of magnitude 0.262ms^-1 but in different directions. You want their vector difference.
BvU said:Hello negation. Appreciate your hard work. You 've got most of it but the ciphering creates mist and confusion. I don't think a little help is a spoiler at this point:
In your picture in #14 you have two vectors: v2 and v1. Draw them again in a new picture, where both grab at the origin. The angle between them is known, right? (Hint: don't use a calculator. Numbers like 0.523 -- which you later corrected to 1.047197551... -- are a lot less helpful than numbers like π / 3). Draw -v1 and then v2 + (-v1). That is the change in the speed vector in 5 minutes. Note it is a vector and it doesn't point downwards. The magnitude is evident. Divide by 5 minutes and you get the average acceleration vector. Its length is π m/min2. (Exactly. The 8.73... is only an approximation for π/3600. On the other hand, vela's 10-5 seems to be a typo to me, so your -4 is better...).
If you want to learn something, repeat the exercise for 1 minute instead of 5 and so on, all the way to dt = 0. If all is well, you just might end up with the 9.138 * 10-4. Or, more correctly ω2 r being π2/3 m/min2.
Don't let the hard work of calculating distract you from the insight: the instantaneous acceleration and the average acceleration are quite different beasts!
You'll know you understand it completely if you can swing a small weight at the end of a rope: what do you do to get it to go in a circle and what do you do to keep it circling...
BvU said:Your drawing in #14 shows two vectors. But they are attached at different points, so it's a little difficult to draw the difference vector. I tried to explain it stepwise: a-b = a+ (-b), even in the vector world. The word grab confused you, but I was afraid the words start or originate would also do that...
My impression is yes, they want the average acceleration going from vector velocity 1 to vector velocity 2. v2 minus v1. Better not use the term tangential velocity here to prevent someone from thinking it concerns a number.
And yes, in circular motion radius vector and velocity vector are perpendicular (otherwise it wouldn't be circular).
The red vector is v2 - v1. In other words, the average vector change in vector velocity. Divide by time and bingo.
BvU said:Your drawing in #14 shows two vectors. But they are attached at different points, so it's a little difficult to draw the difference vector. I tried to explain it stepwise: a-b = a+ (-b), even in the vector world. The word grab confused you, but I was afraid the words start or originate would also do that...
My impression is yes, they want the average acceleration going from vector velocity 1 to vector velocity 2. v2 minus v1. Better not use the term tangential velocity here to prevent someone from thinking it concerns a number.
And yes, in circular motion radius vector and velocity vector are perpendicular (otherwise it wouldn't be circular).
The red vector is v2 - v1. In other words, the average vector change in vector velocity. Divide by time and bingo.
BvU said:The angle doesn't just look like that, it IS. Remember the change in Θ = 2π/30 . 5 . The change in vector velocity v is what you need to change velocity vector v1 into vector v2. That is v1 -v2. That is the red vector: When you take add v1 and add the red vector you end up at v2. Now two equal length sides at π/3 make an equilateral triangle. So the length of the red vector is also 5 π m/min.
Average acceleration = (change in vector velocity) / time = (5 π m/min) / (5 min) = π m/min2, with a direction as given by the red vector. Horizontal component -π/2 m/min2, vertical component -1/2π √3 m/min2. Divide by 3600 to get m/s2.
---
Your drawing in #55 shows two equal length vectors on the left but on the right you draw v2 much too long, suggesting that delta v points straight down!
Then, in part (a), you calculate change in position / time. That gives you the average velocity vector. Not helpful for the average acceleration.
Some improvement is possible: we go from [0,75] to [65,37.5] so that gets us [0.216506351 -0.125] m/s on average . i.e. 0.25 m/s speed, less than the π/12 !
Oh, so part (a) was for only the five-minute interval, not a complete turn as you said before?negation said:View attachment 65887
part(a)
[p(2)-p(1)]/300s
p(2) = [ 75m sin (pi/3) , 75m cos (pi/3)] = (65m , 38m)
p(1) = [75m sin(0) , 75m cos(0)] = (0m , 75m)
[p(2) - p(1)]/300 = (0.22i + 0.13j)ms^-1
Why do you keep plugging in 0 for ##\omega##? The angular speed is the rate at which ##\theta## changes. It's ##d\theta/dt##; it's not ##\theta/t##. Do you understand that when you say v=0, you're saying the wheel is not moving?part(b)
t = 0;
v 1 = r.ω = 75m [0 rad/ 75m] = 0 rad ms^-1
t = 5;
v2 = r.ω = 75m [(pi/3)/75m] = 0.261799386 rad ms^-1
v2 - v1 = 0.261799387m rad s^-1 = Δv
a→ = v→^2/r = (0.261799387m rad s^-1)^2 / 75 = 9.138...e-4