Conservation of Kenetic Energy: Rotational Style

AI Thread Summary
In discussing the conservation of kinetic energy in rotational dynamics, the conversation highlights the need for equivalent formulas for rotational motion, particularly in collisions. The conservation of momentum and kinetic energy principles apply, but they must be adapted for angular momentum, represented as L = Iω, where I is the moment of inertia and ω is the angular frequency. The discussion emphasizes the importance of using angular momentum conservation instead of linear momentum in rotational scenarios, while still maintaining energy conservation. Additionally, the relationship between linear and angular momentum is clarified through the equation L = r × p, where r is the radius and p is linear momentum. Overall, the thread seeks to establish a clear method for calculating final rotational velocities post-collision using these principles.
_Nate_
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
For my physics engine, I have a pretty simple formula to deal with collisions.

Essentially, in a collision, both Momentum and Kinetic Energy have to be conserved. Thus, m1v1 + m2v2 = m1u1 + m2u2 and m1v1^2 + m2v2^2 = m1u1^2 + m2u2^2, and, given m1, m2, v1, and v2, we can solve for u1 and u2 (final velocities of each object) like this:

u1 = (m1-m2)/(m1+m2)v1 + (m2+m2)/(m1+m2)v2
u2 = (m1+m1)/(m1+m2)v1 + (m2-m1)/(m1+m2)v2

And this all works well and good (I think)

However, I am having trouble doing the same thing for rotation: what's the equivalent formula for rotation? Are there rotational equivalents for mass, velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy, and how can I use a formula similar to the one above to, given rotational momentum, calculate rotational velocities after a collision?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
p=I*w and KE=.5*I*w^2
where I is the moment of intertia and w is the angular frequency. p should be replaced with L to show that it is angular momentum.

L=m*(r cross v). the moment of inertia is the intergral of the distance (from the axis of rotation) squared over the entire mass
 
Last edited:
in a rotational system you have to replace conservation of momentum with conservation of angular momentum, but conservation of energy still works (you might have to add a potential term, depending on the situation).
Angular momentum L = mV x R (mass times velocity cross radius), if its circular motion then the cross product turns into simple multiplication L = mVR; keep in mind that the cross product gives you a ang mom vector perpendicular to the velocity and radius (use the right hand rule to get the sign correct + or -)
 
i'm pretty sure its r cross v. point your hand away from the center and curl your fingers couterclockwise for an up moment and clockwise for a down moment.

nate, also notice that angular momentum can be written L=r cross p
 
totally, sorry for the mistake. (also note that RxP = - PxR , which often leads to terms canceling in many-body systems)
 
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...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top