Computing angular speed wrt CM I get a contradiction

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around computing angular speed with respect to the Center of Mass (CM) in rigid body dynamics, specifically comparing two cases: two particles and a disk. In the first case, calculations align correctly, yielding consistent angular speed results. However, in the second case involving a disk, a contradiction arises when equating kinetic energy and angular momentum expressions, leading to different values for angular speed. The issue stems from misapplying the rigid body concept, as the two particles do not form a rigid body, complicating the calculations. The need for clarification on the correct approach to compute angular speed in the context of rigid bodies is emphasized.
arestes
Messages
84
Reaction score
4
Hello!
I have been brushing up my Rigid Body Dynamics.
I tried computing the angular speed with respect the Center of Mass (CM) using the usual split of kinetic energy and also the split of Angular momentum using the CM.
First, a simple case: Two particles of mass M each separated by a distance 2R. One going to the positive x direction with speed v and the other at rest.
preguntame_1.png

The Kinetic Energy, computed separately is:
KE=\frac{1}{2} M v^2
whereas the same KE computed using the split:
KE=\frac{1}{2} (2M) (v/2)^2 + \frac{1}{2} I_{CM} \omega_{CM}^2
Where, obviously, the speed of the CM is \frac{v}{2}. Also, it's easy to see that I_{CM} =2MR^2
therefore, equation both expressions for KE:
\omega_{CM} = \pm \frac{v}{2R}

Then, to check, I compute the angular momentum of the system (with respect to the point where the particle in rest is), using the same trick of splitting it using the CM (which clearly is exactly in the middle, at a distance R of each particle):
Separately: L_O=-Mv(2R)
As a system: L_O=-MvR+ I_{CM}\omega_{CM}=-MvR+(2MR^2)\omega_{CM}
Equating both expressions I get the right answer expected (this time with the correct sign):
\omega_{CM} = - \frac{v}{2R}

So far so good. Now comes the problem. I repeat the ordeal this time with a disk moving with speed v to the right but rotating with angular speed \omega_0. The CM is again exactly in the middle of the particle at rest and the center of the disk.
preguntamelo_2.png

The Kinetic Energy of the system, computed separately (KE of the disk + 0 of the particle at rest):
KE=\frac{1}{2}Mv^2+\frac{1}{2} I_{0} \omega_0^2=\frac{1}{2}Mv^2+\frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{2}MR^2 )\omega_0^2 =\frac{1}{2}Mv^2+\frac{1}{4}MR^2\omega_0^2
where I_{0} is just the moment of inertia of the disk wrt to its own cm, not of the system. Now I compute the same KE using the split and the CM:
KE=\frac{1}{2} (2M) (v/2)^2 + \frac{1}{2} I_{CM} \omega_{CM}^2=\frac{1}{2} (2M) (v/2)^2 + \frac{1}{2} (MR^2+(\frac{1}{2}MR^2+MR^2)) \omega_{CM}^2=\frac{1}{2} (2M) (v/2)^2 + \frac{1}{2} (\frac{5}{2}MR^2) \omega_{CM}^2=\frac{1}{4} M v^2 + \frac{5}{4} (MR^2) \omega_{CM}^2
using the parallel axis theorem (terms in parentheses) for the moment of inertia of the disk.
Equating both expressions I solve for \omega_{CM}
\omega_{CM}=(\frac{1}{5}((v/R)^2+\omega_0^2))^{1/2}

Something already seems odd. A square root of a sum... I then check what the angular momentum split tells me. First the angular momentum computed separately. The disk + 0 of the particle at rest:
Separately: L_O=-Mv(2R) +(I_{CM} \omega_0)=-2MvR +(\frac{1}{2} M R^2 \omega_0)
As a system: L_O=-(2M)(v/2)R+ I_{CM}\omega_{CM}=-MvR+((\frac{1}{2}MR^2+MR^2)+MR^2)\omega_{CM} =-MvR+ I_{CM}\omega_{CM}=-MvR+(\frac{5}{2}MR^2)\omega_{CM}
Equating both expressions I get
\omega_{CM} =\frac{1}{5}(-(v/R)+\frac{1}{2}\omega_0)

And clearly it's a contradiction. What is the correct result for \omega_{CM}?
Any help to resolve this?
 

Attachments

  • preguntame_1.png
    preguntame_1.png
    1.3 KB · Views: 545
  • preguntamelo_2.png
    preguntamelo_2.png
    2.9 KB · Views: 483
Physics news on Phys.org
arestes said:
Then, to check, I compute the angular momentum of the system (with respect to the point where the particle in rest is), using the same trick of splitting it using the CM (which clearly is exactly in the middle, at a distance R of each particle):
Separately: L_O=-Mv(2R)
That is not the angular momentum in the CM system, where you have 2 particles of mass M at distance R moving with v/2 for a total of L=MvR.
It is the angular momentum around the lower object, for example, but that is a different quantity.
 
mfb said:
That is not the angular momentum in the CM system, where you have 2 particles of mass M at distance R moving with v/2 for a total of L=MvR.
It is the angular momentum around the lower object, for example, but that is a different quantity.
Yes, It is in fact the angular momentum around the lower mass (at the origin).
Then I compute the same angular momentum but viewed as a system, therefore (as a system) there's a moment of inertia and I understand that the angular momentum around any point (in particular, again around O) can be split into L (of the center of mass point) _(around the chosen point) + rotational L.

I still get the right answer in the case of the point particles but something is wrong when I put forth the second example.
 
arestes said:
Yes, It is in fact the angular momentum around the lower mass (at the origin).
Then I compute the same angular momentum but viewed as a system, therefore (as a system) there's a moment of inertia and I understand that the angular momentum around any point (in particular, again around O) can be split into L (of the center of mass point) _(around the chosen point) + rotational L.

I still get the right answer in the case of the point particles but something is wrong when I put forth the second example.

I didn't read all your post, but two independent point masses don't form a rigid body. In a rigid body, by definition, the distance between any two points must remain fixed.
 
For simple comparison, I think the same thought process can be followed as a block slides down a hill, - for block down hill, simple starting PE of mgh to final max KE 0.5mv^2 - comparing PE1 to max KE2 would result in finding the work friction did through the process. efficiency is just 100*KE2/PE1. If a mousetrap car travels along a flat surface, a starting PE of 0.5 k th^2 can be measured and maximum velocity of the car can also be measured. If energy efficiency is defined by...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
872
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
Replies
335
Views
16K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
38
Views
3K