Can a rotor ever come to a complete stop with a negative angular acceleration?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving a rotor with negative angular acceleration. The initial calculations suggest that the rotor, starting at 200 rpm, would never come to a complete stop due to exponential decay. However, the teacher's method indicates that the rotor would eventually reach a specific angle, resulting in 222 revolutions before effectively stopping. Participants debate the validity of both methods, with one concluding that while the rotor never truly stops, it converges on a finite number of revolutions. The conversation highlights the nuances of interpreting angular motion and the implications of mathematical modeling in physics.
Kevinc
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I just got done taking a test and on of the problems read: A rotor is turning at 200 rpm and has an angular acceleration of -0.015w rads/s^2. How many seconds before the rotor is at 200rpm. How many revolutions before the rotor comes to rest.

Here is my method for solving:
w initial = 200rpm = 20.9 rads/s

a = dw/dt = -0.015w rads/s^2
dw/w = -0.015dt
ln(w) = -0.015t
integrating both sides yeilds
w = Ce^-0.015t
w = 20.9e^-0.015t

I got the correct answer for the first part, but seeing that this is exponential decay I answered that the rotor would never come to a complete rest. I was told that I have the wrong answer. My teacher demonstrated the "correct" approach.

a = (dw/dtheta) x (dtheta/dt) = (dw/dtheta)w = -0.015w
(dw/dtheta) = -0.015
dw = -0.015 dtheta
using 20.9 - 0 and 0-theta for limits of integration yields
-20.9 = -0.015theta
theta = 1393 rads or 222 revolutions


My assumption seems more logical that the rotor would never stop spinning under those circumstances and would there for have infinite revolutions, but i am unable to find any holes in my teachers method.
If anyone can point out any errors in either mine or my teachers method or give any explanation why to seemingly correct methods would yield different answers I would really appreciate it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Hi Kevinc! Welcome to PF! :smile:

(have an omega: ω and a theta: θ and try using the X2 tag just above the Reply box :wink:)
Kevinc said:
My assumption seems more logical that the rotor would never stop spinning under those circumstances and would there for have infinite revolutions …

Even if it does never stop spinning,

why would that mean there would be infinite revolutions? :wink:
 
Yea your right that was a dumb assumption. It could possibly converge on a specific angle as t goes to infinite. So does it converge on 222 revs as t goes to infinite?
 
I haven't checked your figures, but I assume so. :smile:
 
I just integrated my angular velocity equation to get the angle equation and turns out as t goes to infinite theta goes to 222 revs. I put in my answer that the rotor never comes to rest so technically i am correct and it never actually reaches 222 revs so technically he is incorrect. I think I now have a good argument for the teacher. Thanks for the help.
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top