Calculating the Angular Velocity of a Turntable After Blocks Are Dropped on It

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the angular velocity of a turntable after two blocks are dropped onto it. The turntable has a mass of 2.05 kg and a diameter of 33.64 cm, initially rotating at 365 rpm. Upon the simultaneous impact of two 280 g blocks, the angular velocity is recalculated using the principles of conservation of momentum rather than kinetic energy. The final angular velocity is determined to be 323.46 rpm after correcting the initial calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of angular momentum and its conservation principles
  • Familiarity with rotational dynamics and moment of inertia calculations
  • Knowledge of converting between radians per second and revolutions per minute (rpm)
  • Basic proficiency in algebra for solving equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the conservation of angular momentum in inelastic collisions
  • Learn about calculating moment of inertia for composite objects
  • Explore the relationship between linear and angular velocity
  • Practice converting between different units of angular measurement
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, mechanical engineers, and anyone interested in rotational motion dynamics and conservation laws in mechanics.

talaroue
Messages
302
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A 2.05 kg, 33.64 cm diameter turntable rotates at 365 rpm on frictionless bearings. Two 280 g blocks fall from above, hit the turntable simultaneously at opposite ends of a diagonal, and stick. What is the turntable's angular velocity, in rpm, just after this event?


Homework Equations



I= m(r^2)/2
Ki=I(w^2)/2



The Attempt at a Solution




I changed the 365 rpm to 38.22 rad/s
Then i found that the Ki=mt(r^2)(wi^2)/2
Then i found that the Kf=(mt+mb1+mb2)(r^2)(wi^2)/2)

Then i solved for wf and got the equation mt*wi^2/(the mass of the turntable and blocks). Then the square root of that and got 33.87 rad/s

Then turned 33.87 rad/s to rpm and got 323.46...Did i use the wrong I maybe? I used the I from above. and combined it with the Kinetic energy.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You cannot assume that kinetic energy is conserved. But something else is.
 
momentuem...ahhh i see. stupid mistake on my part.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K